Job applicant with bipolar disorder rejected after casting day: no discrimination or victimisation
A cruise ship entertainment host applicant with bipolar disorder lost his discrimination and victimisation claims after a tribunal found the rejection was based on interview performance, not his disability or previous tribunal claim.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #bipolar-disorder
- #job-application
- #casting-day
- #automated-email-error
- #protected-act
- #blacklisting-allegation
- #territorial-jurisdiction
Key facts
- The claimant applied for an Entertainment Host role with the respondent in February 2022.
- The claimant has bipolar disorder, which the respondent accepted as a disability.
- The claimant was assessed at a casting day on 4 April 2022 and performed poorly on two of three 'culture essentials' questions.
- The panel decided the claimant was unsuitable due to his performance, perceived arrogance, and lack of commitment to an entry-level role.
- An automated email sent in error on 25 April 2022 led the claimant to believe he had been offered a job.
- The respondent informed the claimant on 9 June 2022 that his application was unsuccessful.
- The claimant had brought a previous tribunal claim against a competitor, Royal Caribbean, which he mentioned at interview.
Timeline
-
Claimant employed by Princess Cruises
The claimant joined the Crown Princess as a crew member but was dismissed during probation on 29 September 2017.
-
Reference given for P&O Cruises application
The claimant applied for an Entertainment Manager role with P&O Cruises; a reference from Princess Cruises stated he was 'do not rehire', leading to rejection.
-
Email to block claimant's applications
Leanne Wells emailed the resourcing team asking them to withdraw any future applications from the claimant due to his rude behaviour.
-
Claimant applied for Entertainment Host role
The claimant submitted an online application for an Entertainment Host position with Carnival UK.
-
Claimant invited to casting day
Jordan Watkins invited the claimant to a final stage interview; the claimant disclosed his bipolar disorder and tribunal claim against Royal Caribbean.
-
Casting day interview
The claimant attended the casting day in London; the panel decided he was unsuitable but did not inform him immediately.
-
Automated holding email sent
Mrs Weeks changed the claimant's status to 'on hold' in Jobtrain, triggering an automated email that falsely suggested he was a 'great fit'.
-
Rejection email sent
Holly Makin emailed the claimant stating his application was unsuccessful due to lower interview scores.
-
ET1 claim submitted
The claimant submitted his claim for direct disability discrimination and victimisation.
-
Amendment application refused
Employment Judge Cuthbert refused the claimant's application to amend his claim to include historical allegations from 2017.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether Carnival UK directly discriminated against the applicant because of his bipolar disorder or victimised him for bringing a previous tribunal claim against a competitor, by rejecting his job application.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims of direct disability discrimination and victimisation. It found that the decision not to hire the applicant was based on his poor performance at the casting day interview, where he scored low on two of three 'culture essentials' questions and was perceived as arrogant and lacking commitment to an entry-level role.
Key reasons:
- The panel's concerns were genuine and unrelated to his disability or previous tribunal claim.
- The automated email sent in error on 25 April 2022 did not constitute a job offer.
- The applicant's mention of his previous tribunal claim at interview did not influence the decision.
No compensation was awarded as the claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can reject applicants based on interview performance and attitude, even if the applicant has a disability, as long as the decision is not influenced by the disability.
- Automated emails sent in error do not create binding job offers; applicants should wait for official confirmation.
- Mentioning a previous tribunal claim at interview does not automatically amount to a protected act if it is not linked to the employer's decision.
- A long history of negative interactions with an employer may not be admissible if it falls outside the scope of the claim.
This case shows how difficult it can be for job applicants to prove that a rejection was motivated by disability or victimisation, even when they have a clear disability and have previously brought tribunal claims. The applicant, who has bipolar disorder, applied for an Entertainment Host role with Carnival UK and was invited to a casting day. He performed poorly on two of three 'culture essentials' questions, and the panel found him arrogant and lacking commitment to an entry-level role. The tribunal accepted that these were the genuine reasons for rejection, not his disability or his previous claim against a competitor.
What the employer did right
Carnival UK had a structured interview process with clear scoring criteria. The panel members gave consistent evidence about their concerns, which were unrelated to the applicant's disability. The tribunal noted that the applicant's disclosure of his bipolar disorder at interview did not trigger any negative reaction, and the panel did not discuss it. The employer also acted promptly to correct the automated email error, which had mistakenly suggested the applicant was a 'great fit'.
Why the claims failed
The applicant argued that he had been blacklisted due to his previous tribunal claim and disability, pointing to internal emails from 2017 onwards. However, the tribunal found that the decision-makers in 2022 were unaware of those emails and made their decision based on the interview alone. The legal issue was narrow: whether the rejection itself was discriminatory or victimising. The tribunal concluded it was not.
This case is a reminder that tribunals will look closely at the actual reasons for a rejection, not just the context of an applicant's history. Employers who can show a clear, evidence-based decision-making process are likely to succeed, even if the applicant has a disability or a history of litigation.
Similar cases
CEO working from Poland fails to bring UK unfair dismissal claim
A chief executive who lived in Poland and worked remotely for a UK software firm had his unfair dismissal claim thrown out because the tribunal lacked territorial jurisdiction.
Commodities inspector never worked in UK: tribunal dismisses all claims
A commodities inspector who never set foot in Great Britain for work has had his unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions and breach of contract claims thrown out. The tribunal ruled it had no jurisdiction because the rights he relied on did not apply to him.
GP forced to resign after employer failed to provide ergonomic aids and held surprise performance meeting
A tribunal found that a GP with bipolar disorder and severe neck pain was constructively dismissed and discriminated against after her employer failed to provide a suitable chair and mouse, and treated her negatively in a performance meeting.
India-based software engineer unable to bring UK claim: territorial jurisdiction limits
An Indian-based software engineer who worked for an Indian subsidiary of Alten Limited has had his unfair dismissal and discrimination claims dismissed because the UK tribunal lacked territorial jurisdiction.