NHS Hospital Ordered to Pay £6,000 Over Flawed Job Interview Process
A prominent cancer hospital has been directed to pay more than £6,000 in compensation to an unsuccessful job applicant after an employment tribunal found significant failures in its recruitment procedures. The case centred on whether the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust adequately considered how the candidate's anxiety disorder might have impacted her performance during a high-pressure interview.
The Recruitment Controversy
Anahita Rezaei applied for the position of Pathology Operations Manager at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust in February 2024. At the time of her application, Ms Rezaei was serving as Associate Director of Laboratory Medicine at the Royal Brompton NHS Foundation Trust, bringing substantial experience to the role.
During the 40-minute interview process, another candidate achieved higher scores and was initially offered the position. When that candidate declined the role, the hospital offered it to a different applicant rather than considering Ms Rezaei, despite her being deemed appointable.
Anxiety Disorder and Interview Performance
Ms Rezaei subsequently complained that her anxiety disorder had negatively affected her ability to provide concise answers under the pressure of the interview situation. She explained that her mental health condition "can affect clarity of mind and speech under pressure, particularly in interview situations."
In her application form, Ms Rezaei had selected "mental health condition" from a drop-down menu, though she had also ticked "I do not wish to disclose my disabilities" in the equal opportunities section. She later informed the tribunal panel that this selection had been made in error.
Employment Tribunal Findings
The employment tribunal delivered a critical assessment of the hospital's recruitment practices. The panel determined that the Royal Marsden had failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments by not reviewing whether Ms Rezaei's disability had impacted her interview scores before proceeding to fill the vacancy.
Significantly, the tribunal noted that the hospital's recruitment records were incomplete, with scores from the director of operations Judith Lucas and the overall summary sheet unavailable for examination. This documentation gap meant the tribunal could not definitively establish the final ranking of candidates.
"In our view, the interview process was flawed as it marked question by question, rather than competency by competency," the tribunal stated in its findings.Communication Breakdown and Compensation
The tribunal highlighted concerning communication failures within the hospital's response process. Ms Rezaei wrote to the hospital's director of workforce Krystyna Ruszkiewicz in April 2024, expressing concerns that she "felt rushed" after the interview began five minutes late and raising additional queries about the process.
She received no response to this complaint, and ten days later, the hospital offered the position to another candidate. Ms Rezaei did not receive any reply until June of that year, creating what the tribunal described as a "potential unfairness" that the hospital took "no steps" to remedy.
The tribunal suggested the hospital could have reinterviewed both candidates after learning about Ms Rezaei's anxiety concerns, but failed to take this reasonable step.
Compensation Award and Dismissed Claims
Ms Rezaei, who represented herself during the three-day hearing in London, was awarded £6,000 in compensation for injury to feelings, plus £840 in interest and £880 in preparation costs, bringing the total award to £7,720.
The tribunal dismissed her other claims of disability discrimination and unfavourable treatment, describing the incident as a "one-off" occurrence. The panel noted that while they acknowledged Ms Rezaei's "genuine distress," they had no medical evidence linking the hospital's failure to make reasonable adjustments to any specific impact on her health.
Outlining their reasoning, the tribunal stated: "While we acknowledge the claimant's genuine distress, we have no medical evidence before us to link the respondent's failure to make reasonable adjustments to any impact on the claimant's health, particularly as the effects the claimant describes are a result of the entire process, parts of which we have not found to be discriminatory."
Broader Implications for NHS Recruitment
This case highlights significant issues within NHS recruitment processes, particularly regarding how disabilities are accommodated during competitive interview situations. The tribunal's criticism of the hospital's incomplete records and flawed marking system raises questions about transparency and fairness in public sector hiring.
The judgment serves as a reminder to employers across the healthcare sector of their obligations to make reasonable adjustments for candidates with disabilities, even when those candidates have not explicitly requested special arrangements during the application process.
The Daily Mail has contacted the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust for comment on the tribunal's findings and the compensation award.
