Sadly, true
- Thread starter Diogenes
- Start date
Yes, the core claim is accurate. A UK employment tribunal did rule that an employer’s stated aim of wanting to hire “fewer white men” (in the context of improving workforce diversity) was not itself evidence of unlawful discrimination.
Case details
In 2021, Chris Palmer (a white man) applied for a senior HR/People Lead role (~£80,000) at AIMS Markets Limited, a financial services firm. During a preliminary interview, managing director Michael Jones discussed the company’s desire for a more diverse workforce. Palmer and witnesses who overheard recalled wording along the lines of wanting or hoping to hire “fewer white men.” Palmer advanced to a second interview but was rejected; the firm later hired a white woman. Palmer brought claims of direct sex and race discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
The London Central Employment Tribunal (judgment on liability around August 2023; widely reported in December 2023) dismissed the claims. Key findings included:
- On the balance of probabilities, Jones said something to the effect that the company hoped to achieve a position with fewer white men as a proportion of the workforce (not a hard exclusion of white men). The tribunal viewed the phrasing as poorly expressed but not indicative of an intention to discriminate against Palmer personally.
- Aspiring to a less white-male-dominated workforce in a traditionally skewed sector does not automatically mean the employer intends to achieve that by discriminating against white men in recruitment. Discussing diversity goals with a candidate for a Head of HR role was not odd or concerning.
- Other evidence (interview notes citing concerns about Palmer’s perceived arrogance, salary expectations, and suitability for “nuts and bolts” work in a small/startup-like firm; the fact that Jones advanced him to the next round; and that a white candidate was ultimately hired) did not support discrimination as the reason for rejection.
The tribunal emphasized that an aim of greater diversity where there is underrepresentation is not, by itself, proof of discriminatory intent in a specific hiring decision. A later costs application by the employer (seeking ~£50k) was also rejected; the judge found Palmer had genuinely believed he had been discriminated against.
Context and caveats
- This is a first-instance UK employment tribunal decision (not a higher court binding precedent). UK law permits limited “positive action” to address underrepresentation but prohibits positive discrimination (e.g., selecting a less-qualified candidate solely because of protected characteristics).
- The headline phrasing (“Wanting to ‘hire fewer white men’ not discrimination”) is a fair summary of the ruling’s bottom line, though the tribunal focused more narrowly on the lack of evidence that this particular rejection was discriminatory.
- The case drew coverage from HR Magazine, The Telegraph, Daily Mail, Personnel Today, and others in late 2023/early 2024. The post you linked simply shares the headline/image of that coverage (from an HR Magazine article dated 21 December 2023).