An IT expert tried to sue the BBC after claiming the organisation turned him down for a job - because he was not ‘geeky’ enough.
James Orior, 36, suggested managers at the BBC had viewed him more of a ‘'nerd’ than a ‘geek’ when he applied to join a digital design trainee scheme. He sued for direct and indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, arguing feedback proved the BBC selection process was ''unfair''.
The bizarre legal wrangle began after Mr Orior applied for a job at the corporation as a UX design trainee. The BBC wanted four recruits to design digital experiences and of the 1,340 people who applied, 26 candidates were shortlisted for interview and were required to provide portfolios containing details of their design ideas.
READ MORE: Six weeks until new Clean Air Zone plan - what happens next and what it means for you
Mr Orior learnt he had not been shortlisted for the job in August 2020 and requested feedback from hiring managers. In response the BBC emailed him saying he needed: ''More attention to the craft and detail of your design work - thinking about the typography, brand, interaction design and the layout of your designs.”
It also said he required: ''Further and more in-depth thinking about solving user-centred problems in new ways by trying out new and emerging techniques and technologies.'' He was further advised to provide more than two projects to showcase a more diverse range of work and how to tackle different sorts of problems.
Later Mr Orior filed legal papers saying the BBC had ''made up'' up its feedback and said he was treated ''less favourably'' as he was in the 30-35 age group. He claimed the BBC ''required candidates to be geeky” and produced a news article in an attempt to support his discrimination claims.
The Illinois News Bureau article from 2009 sought to explain the difference between the stereotypes between a ‘nerd’ and a ‘geek’. In the article, it was claimed ‘nerd’ had ''negative connotations'' and is ''typically represented by a white male with glasses and large sets of obscure data committed to memory.''
Meanwhile, the report said 'geek' was ''more positive” and was viewed as being “chic, tending to indicate expertise and passion about something.'' But a judge struck out Mr Orior’s claims for age discrimination ahead of a formal hearing.
Mr Orior, who works as a freelance User Experience Architect, also tried to sue for disability discrimination, citing his Type 1 diabetes, a stammer, and an adjustment disorder but it was rejected too. A further claim for racial discrimination on the basis he is black African Nigerian was also dismissed.
In rejecting the claims, South London tribunal judge Adenike Balogun said: ''The article expresses one person’s view and cannot be relied on as an authoritative statement on the matter. Nevertheless, even taking it at face value, it does not assist the claimant in showing that persons of his age group would be at a disadvantage in being able to demonstrate “geeky” traits.''
The judge added: ''It is not enough for the claimant to simply show a difference in treatment and a difference in protected characteristics - he has to show more. 'In the case of direct discrimination, the claimant must show that he has been treated less favourably than an actual or hypothetical comparator.
''In order for the direct claim to succeed, the alleged discriminators must know of the claimant’s age group. The claimant contends that by process of deduction, the respondent would have worked out that he was not 20 years old.
''However, none of the shortlisted candidates were. Two of the candidates shortlisted were within the claimant’s age group and a number of candidates straddled the bottom end of the group including two candidates who both went on to be appointed. The claimant’s chances of being selected for interview were always slim.”
The majority of the candidates (98%) were not selected for interview and given those odds, a full Tribunal would be unlikely to draw any inferences from the claimant’s non-selection.
Judge Balogun added: “The respondent’s reasons for not selecting the claimant are set out in the respondent’s email. The claimant contends that these are made up reasons. He says that because he has not seen any paperwork supporting it. But that is an assertion without any basis. The claims have no reasonable prospect of success.''
Sign up for the MEN's free daily newsletter by clicking here.
