A recent employment tribunal ruling highlights a critical blind spot for many organisations, the gap between having the right policies and running a legally compliant recruitment process.

A hospital recently lost an employment tribunal case, resulting in a £7,720 award to an unsuccessful job applicant. The reason? Not a missing diversity policy, not a lack of equal opportunities monitoring, but a failure in the actual recruitment process itself.

Does your recruitment process reflect your HR policies and are your Hiring Managers trained to ensure they understand exactly what that mean? Get in touch for more information about our training support.

What Happened?

An unsuccessful candidate disclosed that she had anxiety after her interview ran late. She felt rushed during the interview, believed it had affected her performance, and raised this with the hiring panel. The panel took no action: no review of her scores, no consideration of a reasonable adjustment, no reconsideration of the outcome.

When the original successful candidate subsequently declined the offer, the role was reopened, but again, no fresh consideration was given to the circumstances surrounding this applicant’s interview experience.

The tribunal found in the applicant’s favour. The award was £7,720. The reputational and operational costs will have been significantly higher.

The Critical Difference Between Policy and Process

This is the distinction I return to time and again with my clients: having a policy is not the same as having a process.

In this case, the hospital almost certainly had a disability and equality policy in place. They likely collected equal opportunities monitoring data. They may even have had a stated commitment to reasonable adjustments. But none of that translated into the lived reality of how the recruitment panel behaved on the day.

Consider what good practice would have looked like:

  • When the candidate disclosed her anxiety and flagged that the late start had affected her performance, this should have triggered an immediate review of the scoring.
  • The panel should have had a clearly defined process for handling disclosures received after interview.
  • When the first candidate declined and the role was reconsidered, this was a natural decision point to revisit the circumstances of all remaining candidates.
  • Scoring sheets from all panel members should have been retained; the tribunal noted that one panelist’s sheet was missing entirely.

“Having a diversity & inclusion policy does not mean you have an inclusive recruitment process.”

What a Robust Recruitment Process Looks Like in Practice

Based on my work with clients across a range of sectors, here are the process elements that make the real difference:

1. Reasonable adjustment checks at every stage – not just at application

Many organisations ask candidates whether they require adjustments on the initial application form. This is good practice but it is not sufficient. Candidates may not know at application stage what they will need, their circumstances may change, or they may only feel comfortable disclosing once they know more about what the process involves. Adjustment checks should be repeated at shortlisting, at interview invitation, and at any subsequent stage.

2. Clear decision audit trails

Every panel member should complete and retain a scoring sheet for every candidate. These records serve two purposes: they help ensure fair and consistent decision-making in the moment, and they provide the documented evidence base you need if a decision is ever challenged. The absence of a panel member’s scoring sheet in this tribunal case was specifically noted…. and it mattered.

3. A defined review step when new information comes to light

Your process should include a clearly defined trigger point: if a candidate discloses something material after interview – a disability, a health condition, circumstances that affected their performance – there must be an agreed step that requires the panel to formally consider whether this changes anything. This does not mean the decision will always change. It means the consideration has been made and documented.

4. Recruitment training for hiring managers – not just HR teams

HR teams rarely make hiring decisions alone. The line managers and department heads sitting on interview panels are often the ones who will make or break your legal compliance and they may have had little or no training on equality law, reasonable adjustments, or how to handle a disclosure. Recruitment training needs to reach the people who are actually running interviews.

The Broader Context: Why This Matters Now

The labour market remains challenging for candidates and organisations alike. Competition for roles is high, and unsuccessful applicants are increasingly aware of their rights. When candidates feel that a process was unfair, particularly when they have disclosed a health condition or disability, they have every reason to explore whether a claim is viable.

A £7,720 tribunal award is entirely avoidable. The legal and HR advisory costs of defending a claim will often exceed the award itself. And beyond the financial cost, there is the reputational impact on your employer brand at precisely the moment when attracting the right talent matters most.

Is Your Recruitment Process as Robust as Your HR Policies?

This is the question I ask every organisation I work with. Not: do you have a policy? But: does your process actually deliver on what your policy promises?

I work with clients to build recruitment processes that are both legally sound and genuinely fair, end-to-end, from job design through to appointment. That includes creating detailed recruitment policies that incorporate the complete process, not just a set of principles.

If you would like to discuss how your current recruitment process stands up, or if you want to strengthen it before a challenge arises,  I would be delighted to have that conversation.

Get in touch to find out how we can help your organisation recruit with confidence.