Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Employment lawEquality, diversity and inclusionData protectionRecruitment & retentionOpinion

Legal Opinion: Disclosure of information to unsuccessful job applicants

by Michael Scutt 8 May 2012
by Michael Scutt 8 May 2012

Can an unsuccessful job applicant demand that the prospective employer provide him or her with documents about the successful applicant?

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has held, in Meister v Speech Design Carrier Systems GmbH, that there is no such duty on an employer, but also held that refusal to disclose the information may be one of a range of factors to be taken into account in deciding a subsequent discrimination claim.

Obtaining evidence of discrimination

Ms Meister was a Russian national holding a Russian degree in systems engineering, which was a recognised qualification in Germany. The respondent company, which was based in Germany, placed a newspaper advertisement for a software developer. Ms Meister applied and was rejected without interview. The company then re-advertised the position. Ms Meister re-applied and she was again rejected without being called for interview. There was nothing in the subsequent proceedings to suggest that her qualifications for the post were unsatisfactory. She was not told why her applications had been unsuccessful. Subsequently, Ms Meister issued proceedings against the company alleging that she had been subjected to less favourable treatment on the grounds of her sex, age and ethnic origin.

She claimed compensation for discrimination and applied for an order for production of the file of the person who had been engaged, in order to prove that she was more qualified than the appointee. The question of whether or not the employer was obliged to disclose the successful applicant’s details was referred to the ECJ.

Possible adverse inference

The ECJ decided that there is no automatic right to the information, on the basis that, under the relevant EU Directives on equal treatment, a claimant has to establish facts that demonstrated there may have been discrimination and it was then for the respondent to prove that there had been no discrimination. In other words, because of the reversal of the burden of proof, the claimant is not entitled to this information, but where disclosure is refused that may lead to an adverse inference being made against the respondent.

Lessons for employers

Employers face a potentially uncomfortable situation when an unsuccessful job applicant seeks to know why they were not selected for the role when their qualifications (as here) were suitable. Although this case provides some comfort to employers in confirming that disclosure of the successful applicant’s details does not have to be provided as of right, it also signals that the employer will need to be able to justify a refusal to disclose such information because that may be held against them in subsequent proceedings as evidence of discrimination.

Therefore, when a request is made, the employer will need to consider carefully whether or not to disclose the details. This in turn will require the employer to be able to justify why they did not select the applicant. Having an equal opportunities policy stating that applicants will be selected purely on merit and adhering to that policy is essential: if an employer can point to a workforce that is diverse in all respects of age, race, gender and so on it will make it more likely to be able to defeat this type of claim if one arises.

When an employer is faced with a substantial number of job applications it can be very difficult to scrutinise each one carefully. Employers need to have proper procedures in place for receiving and reviewing applications.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Michael Scutt, employment partner at Dale Langley & Co








FAQs from XpertHR



  • Does an employer have to surrender confidential documents to an employment tribunal if so directed?
  • What is a statutory discrimination questionnaire?
  • What kind of information can a complainant ask for in a statutory discrimination questionnaire?
  • What are the potential consequences if an employer does not respond to a statutory discrimination questionnaire?

Michael Scutt

previous post
What’s working in L&D: quick-fire links
next post
Government should ‘hold its nerve’ on flexible working extension, says CIPD

You may also like

Fire and rehire: the relocation question

22 May 2025

How neuroscience can unlock employee recognition

22 May 2025

Fewer workers would comply with a return-to-office mandate

21 May 2025

Redefining leadership: From competence to inclusion

21 May 2025

Consultation launched after Supreme Court ‘sex’ ruling

20 May 2025

Minister defends Employment Rights Bill at Acas conference

16 May 2025

Workers ‘wait and see’ as companies struggle to...

16 May 2025

CBI chair Soames accuses ministers of not listening...

16 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

‘Polygamous working’ is a minefield for HR

14 May 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+