
Housing chief wins £26,000 damages over racism claims
A housing association boss who claimed racial discrimination when he applied for a senior post with Angus Council has been awarded £26,054 after winning his claim.
Ahsan Khan, 45, who is of Bangladeshi origin, complained of direct and indirect racial discrimination when he applied for the post of head of housing with the council.
An Edinburgh employment tribunal heard Mr Khan was one of 15 applicants for the post but he was not interviewed, even though he met the required specification which included substantial senior management experience within housing.
However, when the council drew up its short leet for interview, it refined its requirement to recent experience of the Scottish local authority scene.
Mr Khan pointed out that, as there was no-one of black or ethnic minority working within the local authority at a sufficiently high level to be a candidate for the post, the criteria was indirectly discriminatory. He said there were some who worked in the housing association sector.
Angus Council denied discrimination on racial grounds, explaining the short leet was refined as they had received an unexpectedly high number of applications.
It was important to appoint someone who could "hit the ground running" as they were about to lose two of three senior members of housing department staff.
Mr Khan, who was, and still is, chief executive of Loreburn Housing Association, having been appointed in 1998, had previously worked with a number of local authorities in Scotland. Loreburn Housing Association, a charity, owns nearly 2000 properties in Dumfries and Galloway and has six main departments, overseen by Mr Khan.
Had local authority experience been indicated in the
job advert, Mr Khan said he would have highlighted his experience in these areas.
The tribunal heard Ron Ashton, who would have been Mr Khan's line manager and knew he was a good public speaker with a strong personality, attended the meeting where the short leet was drawn up. Mr Ashton also knew the successful candidate, Alan McEwen, well and had a very high regard for him. Mr McEwen's previous post had been with Cosla, which has no housing function.
At the time of the application, Mr Khan earned £56,000 a year and Mr McEwen £45,000. The Angus post offered a salary of £74,000.
Mr Khan told the tribunal he felt the post perfectly met both his personal and professional ambitions.
The tribunal found in recommending Mr McEwen for short leeting, Mr Ashton ignored or played down features of his application which did not meet or significantly fell below the requirements of the person specification as he was keen to see Mr McEwen appointed. He recognised that, if Mr Khan was interviewed, there was a possibility he would be appointed.
"Either consciously or unconsciously Mr Ashton was influenced in that view by his knowledge of the claimant's black ethnic minority background," employment judge Susan Craig said.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.

Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 9:27pm Tue 29 Apr 08
I don't know whether Mr Khan's ethnic background had anything to do with it, I think probably not, but certainly the appointment sounds like a stitch up to me. It should be possible to claim discrimination on the basis of ''my face doesn't fit'' but it isn't. Good on Mr Khan for getting them anyway, whatever means he had to use to do it.
I don't know whether Mr Khan's ethnic background had anything to do with it, I think probably not, but certainly the appointment sounds like a stitch up to me. It should be possible to claim discrimination on the basis of ''my face doesn't fit'' but it isn't. Good on Mr Khan for getting them anyway, whatever means he had to use to do it.
Posted by: JBlackley, Florida on 9:47pm Tue 29 Apr 08
The original requirements for the job included "substantial senior management experience within housing" while the successful candidate worked for Cosia "which has no housing function".
I don't know if the change was conscious racial discrimination or if this was a 'brother-in-law' job. If the former then Mr. Khan is entitled to everything he's been awarded. If the latter then every other qualified candidate should get the same.
The original requirements for the job included "substantial senior management experience within housing" while the successful candidate worked for Cosia "which has no housing function".
I don't know if the change was conscious racial discrimination or if this was a 'brother-in-law' job. If the former then Mr. Khan is entitled to everything he's been awarded. If the latter then every other qualified candidate should get the same.
Posted by: stevie, glasgow on 9:50pm Tue 29 Apr 08
Jings this in Wullies neck of the woods,might be worth waiting up to see what he has to say about this.
Jings this in Wullies neck of the woods,might be worth waiting up to see what he has to say about this.
Posted by: Observer, Glasgow on 9:56pm Tue 29 Apr 08
J blackley I started off assuming that Mr Khan used what tools he had to hand to seek revenge for being passed over for a job which on paper he is far more qualified to do. Then I read the article again and it said that there were no non- white candidates at sufficiently high level in the local authority to qualify for the short leet. Now why is that ? Perhaps Mr Khan's ethnicity is related. Although I still think it's a clear case of nepotism. Still either way he has done what a lot of other people would have loved to have done.
J blackley I started off assuming that Mr Khan used what tools he had to hand to seek revenge for being passed over for a job which on paper he is far more qualified to do. Then I read the article again and it said that there were no non- white candidates at sufficiently high level in the local authority to qualify for the short leet. Now why is that ? Perhaps Mr Khan's ethnicity is related. Although I still think it's a clear case of nepotism. Still either way he has done what a lot of other people would have loved to have done.
Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 9:56pm Tue 29 Apr 08
Why £26.000. Why not 26 pence or £26 million. How can you measure in money terms if someones feelings are hurt. Meanwhile British soldiers are getting their legs and arms blown off and they get a pittance. Yup, the inmates have taken over the asylum. The last person to leave Scotland, can you put the lights out. Thanks.
Why £26.000. Why not 26 pence or £26 million. How can you measure in money terms if someones feelings are hurt. Meanwhile British soldiers are getting their legs and arms blown off and they get a pittance. Yup, the inmates have taken over the asylum. The last person to leave Scotland, can you put the lights out. Thanks.
Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 10:05pm Tue 29 Apr 08
Who would have thought it. '' Stevie '' and ''Oddserver ''. The Steptoe and Son of the Herald forum, two old gits, ready for the knackers yard spouting their multicultural, liberal junk all over the forum. Thanks a bunch.
Who would have thought it. '' Stevie '' and ''Oddserver ''. The Steptoe and Son of the Herald forum, two old gits, ready for the knackers yard spouting their multicultural, liberal junk all over the forum. Thanks a bunch.
Posted by: stevie, glasgow on 10:33pm Tue 29 Apr 08
Welcome back Wullie ,how did you get on at the sex addicts clinic??.
Welcome back Wullie ,how did you get on at the sex addicts clinic??.
Posted by: stevie, glasgow on 10:38pm Tue 29 Apr 08
You had me worried for a while Wullie ,I even had to quote Winston to Exiled Aussie .
Strange thing is ,it worked he vanished and hasn't been seen since.
You had me worried for a while Wullie ,I even had to quote Winston to Exiled Aussie .
Strange thing is ,it worked he vanished and hasn't been seen since.
Posted by: Wullie, Aberdeen on 11:00pm Tue 29 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Observer[/bold] wrote:
I don't know whether Mr Khan's ethnic background had anything to do with it, I think probably not, but certainly the appointment sounds like a stitch up to me. It should be possible to claim discrimination on the basis of ''my face doesn't fit'' but it isn't. Good on Mr Khan for getting them anyway, whatever means he had to use to do it.[/quote] More pathos from Oddserver.
Observer wrote:
I don't know whether Mr Khan's ethnic background had anything to do with it, I think probably not, but certainly the appointment sounds like a stitch up to me. It should be possible to claim discrimination on the basis of ''my face doesn't fit'' but it isn't. Good on Mr Khan for getting them anyway, whatever means he had to use to do it.
More pathos from Oddserver.
Posted by: Douglas Walker, Glasgow on 8:12am Wed 30 Apr 08
Let's face it. They already had someone in line for the job, probably a good friend, and Mr Khan was an inconvenient applicant.
They got caught - good.
Let's face it. They already had someone in line for the job, probably a good friend, and Mr Khan was an inconvenient applicant.
They got caught - good.
Posted by: TommyK60, Ayr on 3:50pm Wed 30 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Observer[/bold] wrote:
I don't know whether Mr Khan's ethnic background had anything to do with it, I think probably not, but certainly the appointment sounds like a stitch up to me. It should be possible to claim discrimination on the basis of ''my face doesn't fit'' but it isn't. Good on Mr Khan for getting them anyway, whatever means he had to use to do it.[/quote] I have to agree, this became an issue because the goalposts were moved after the applications were received, not very clever by whoever changed the rules.
That person needs to be at least sacked, and maybe even investigated to find out the reasons behind the changing of the criteria to ensure there was no curruption at the centre of this.
Observer wrote:
I don't know whether Mr Khan's ethnic background had anything to do with it, I think probably not, but certainly the appointment sounds like a stitch up to me. It should be possible to claim discrimination on the basis of ''my face doesn't fit'' but it isn't. Good on Mr Khan for getting them anyway, whatever means he had to use to do it.
I have to agree, this became an issue because the goalposts were moved after the applications were received, not very clever by whoever changed the rules.
That person needs to be at least sacked, and maybe even investigated to find out the reasons behind the changing of the criteria to ensure there was no curruption at the centre of this.
Posted by: George Laird, Glasgow on 4:14pm Wed 30 Apr 08
Dear All
Well done Mr Khan for winning his case.
Another example of establishment unfair treatment.
As the first student in the history of Glasgow University to be banned for giving advice to an asian et al, I know well the problems of discrimination.
Yourrs sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
Dear All
Well done Mr Khan for winning his case.
Another example of establishment unfair treatment.
As the first student in the history of Glasgow University to be banned for giving advice to an asian et al, I know well the problems of discrimination.
Yourrs sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
Posted by: ubergeek, glasgow on 7:11pm Wed 30 Apr 08
whats wrang with glasgow uni george?
i went there and everyone was perfectly hospitable?
whats wrang with glasgow uni george?
i went there and everyone was perfectly hospitable?
