Virgin Atlantic wins 'name racism' battle

A Cardiff employment tribunal has dismissed a race discrimination claim by a Liberian man who said Virgin Atlantic rejected a job application because of his name.

Maxson Kpakio obtained an interview for the job at a call centre in Swansea when he submitted a second application under the name 'Craig Owen'. He argued, under section 39 of the Equality Act, that he was rejected the first time because of his ethnic origin or nationality.

The tribunal heard that Kpakio originally claimed over £82,000 from Virgin Atlantic, which he reduced after a case management decision to £56,000. Under cross-examination he withdrew this and asked instead for an apology and job offer.

However, the tribunal heard that Craig Owen's CV was not the same as Max Kpakio's.

Giving judgment in Kpakio v Virgin Atlantic Airways (case no. 1604280/2012), employment judge Sharp said: "The claimant says his name shows he is African, and that his application and CV refers to his education and experience in Liberia.

"The claimant points out he completed the equal opportunities monitoring form to say he was a black African.

"It is a finding of this tribunal that this is not entirely accurate. Nowhere in the application form or CV of the claimant is there a reference specifically to Liberia or Africa.

"The education and experience all post date the claimant's arrival in the UK in 2002. The only reference to Africa is potentially the claimant's name, which the tribunal finds is not a traditional British name, and the monitoring form."

Judge Sharp said Kpakio's application for the job as a customers service adviser was considered by Charlotte Day, a Virgin Atlantic HR co-ordinator.

Day told the tribunal she had "five minutes per application" to decide whether the essential criteria were met. She said she did not have access to the monitoring form, she "did not recognise the name of the claimant as African" and "did not recall reading it". The tribunal accepted that all Day and her colleagues looked at were "the answers to the questions and the CV".

The tribunal heard that in Kpakio's first application, there was "no reference to his formal work customer service work in a retail environment" when he worked for a supermarket, nor his experience of 'live chat' or instant messaging between customers and retailers.

"Mr Owen's application and CV was very different to the claimant's; it was not a case of simply changing the name and ethnicity," Judge Sharp said.

"Mr Owen's degree and dates in university were different to the claimant's. Much more critically, Mr Owen specifically mentioned he had experience of live chat, and five years of working in customer service in a retail environment."

Judge Sharp went on: "The tribunal wishes to be absolutely clear given the press coverage in the hearing bundle that the claimant did not merely change the names and ethnicity in the two applications; they were different applications and the false application was clearly designed to meet the respondent's criteria for the role."

The tribunal concluded that Day did not behave in a racially discriminatory way towards Kpakio, that Virgin Atlantic had given a "fully adequate" explanation for its decision and it was nothing to do with his protected characteristic.

The tribunal dismissed the claim for direct race discrimination.