And speaking of slippery slopes brings me to the case of London Ambulance Service NHS Trust v Sodola [2026], in which race discrimination was alleged when feedback systems failed.

Mr Sodola was employed by NHS Direct in January 2013, before transferring later that year to London Ambulance Service NHS Trust in November. By 2020 he was working as a health adviser and pathway trainer. In April 2020 he applied for promotion to a Team Manager role, having previously applied unsuccessfully on four separate occasions. He was shortlisted with six other colleagues and was interviewed in May 2020. However, in this interview, Mr Sodola scored 7/15, which was lower than the successful candidates (ranging from 9/15 – 14/15). He was informed verbally in early June 2020 that he had not been appointed.

Following the decision, Mr Sodola raised concerns about the recruitment process, including the lack of diversity in management and the way his application had been handled. He also raised concerns that another unsuccessful candidate was also black. He requested written feedback on his interview on 7 June 2020, but this was not provided until 23 August 2020, almost three months later. This feedback was very vague and stated “you came across very confident – however did not answer the questions effectively – I recommend that you attend a workshop for interviews which the Trust offer”. During this period he pursued grievances about the delay, the quality of the process, and what he perceived as unfair treatment, linking these issues to his race.

Mr Sodola subsequently brought claims in the Employment Tribunal alleging direct race discrimination. He argued both that the failure to promote him and the delay in providing written feedback amounted to less favourable treatment because of race, contrary to the Equality Act 2010.

The ET rejected the claim that the decision not to promote Mr Sodola was discriminatory, finding that the appointment decision was based on interview scores and that the successful candidates were stronger. However, the ET upheld the claim relating to the delay in providing written feedback. It found that the prolonged delay, combined with poor administration and failure to follow internal procedures, was sufficient to give rise to an inference of discrimination. The ET concluded that the burden of proof shifted to the Trust, which had failed to show that the delay was unrelated to Mr Sodola’s race. The Trust then appealed.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the Trust’s appeal. It held that the ET had misapplied the burden of proof provisions by treating delay and poor process as sufficient, without more, to infer discrimination. The EAT emphasised that unsatisfactory treatment does not automatically point to unlawful discrimination and that there must be a logical connection between the treatment complained of and the protected characteristic. Given that the ET had already found the promotion decision itself to be non-discriminatory, it was illogical to conclude that the delayed feedback explaining that decision was racially motivated in the absence of further evidence. The EAT therefore set aside the finding of direct race discrimination.

In conclusion, the case confirms that delay, administrative failings or poor handling of a recruitment process, even where regrettable, are not sufficient on their own to establish direct discrimination. There must be evidence from which a tribunal can properly infer that the treatment complained of was because of a protected characteristic, and without such evidence the burden of proof will not shift to the employer. Nevertheless, the case highlights the importance of having clear, consistent and timely procedures for interviews, scoring and feedback, as failures in recruitment processes can create unnecessary risk, invite scrutiny, and increase the likelihood of discrimination claims being brought.