A law student single-handedly took-on a top legal firm and won a landmark ruling that will open-up British job vacancies to foreign applicants.
The case won by banking studies graduate Ash Purohit means UK firms must now consider all candidates on merit, even if they lack a UK work permit.
Indian-born Mr Purohit took commercial law firm Osborne Clarke Services (OCS) to an Employment Tribunal and a claim for race discrimination.
He then defended that victory at the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) in a case that now sets a marker for all other UK companies.
Mr Purohit, who was born in Jodhpur and raised in Mumbai, has an MA in Banking and Finance from Sheffield Hallam University and is currently studying law at a BPP college in the UK.
He first took OCS to an Employment Tribunal after discovering the firm operated a blanket ban on applications, for trainee positions, from anyone without a UK work permit.
He had applied for post as a trainee solicitor with OCS In June 2007 but was shocked to discover that it would not even be considered because of his immigration status.
The company rejected his application citing its policy debarring candidates from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) saying it would not apply for work permits on their behalf.
Purohit lodged two claims, one for direct race discrimination and the second for indirect race discrimination, both on the grounds of nationality. He won the indirect discrimination claim.
OCS appealed but the EAT has dismissed that appeal and the victory means that all non-EEA nationals seeking job in UK now have a right to be considered in the selection process.
However, new regulations introduced last November - while the OCS appeal was in process - add further complications to the issue.
Ashokvardhan Purohit said: "I had completed my undergraduate in Chemistry and Industrial Chemistry, and studied law part-time in India before I came to the UK to study.
"Having completed a Masters in Banking and Finance from Sheffield Hallam University, I am now studying at BPP Law School. . I am particularly interested in working in the field of mergers and acquisitions
"My understanding on this issue was that, employers on their necessarily high screening criteria, were going to select the best candidate via open competition for the job and then based on that selection, make an application for a work permit to the UK Border Agency.
"However, I was disappointed to see that, some of the leading law firms like OCS were using the work permit requirement to segregate and reject applications for non EEA nation candidates.
"When I applied to OCS I wanted to be considered for employment on merit but I discovered the company operated a blanket ban against candidates without a work permit.
"I felt this was discrimination on grounds of race and therefore challenged it at the Employment Tribunal.
"I wasn't sure what to expect about the outcome of the case as I knew that it was going to be difficult.
"The policy of rejecting applications of non-EEA Nationals has been adopted by employers in all sectors in the UK for decades.
"These were recruitment procedures and policies guided and drafted by some of the greatest legal brains and leading law firms.
"But now I have proved it is discriminating since I am the first person to challenge this procedure.
"In fact I tried to seek advice from my law tutors and contacted leading law firms to assist me to fight this uphill battle.
"But everyone kept on telling me that, this was impossible and no-one offered to take on my case.
"I was even told by some people that as a non-EEA national I had no right to take a case to the Employment Tribunal.
"Fortunately I had the moral support of my parents and I worked alone on this case.
"It must admit it was really challenging and demanding and it has taken its toll on me.
"I brought this case, with the intention of fighting for my right and for the rights of all the other non-EEA Nationals who want to apply for the jobs over here in the UK.
"I hope the ruling means that the selection procedures are now going to be based on merit and intellect so the best person can get the job via open competition.
"I'm pleased this decision has gone in my favour.
"It is clear that firms had been misinterpreting the law and government policies and a vast majority of employers were using the excuse of the lack of a work permit to reject applications from non-EEA Nationals.
"The were using the UK Borders Agency as a shield for acts of discrimination.
"It was very daunting to take on a big firm like OCS but it was a matter of principle and I am glad that the tribunal and the EAT recognised the validity of my case."
Osborne Clarke said it changed its policy in light of the original Employment Tribunal's ruling. The Company now considers applications for training contracts from candidates of all nationalities, candidates are not asked if they require work permits until they are offered a position with the Company.
All offers of employment are still conditional on the candidates' ability to obtain a work permit, and Osborne Clarke Services will apply for this on the candidates' behalf as a sponsor if they are successful in their application.
A spokesman for Osborne Clarke Services said: "We are disappointed that the Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled against us on the issue of indirect discrimination.
"We believed that, given the significant volumes of EEA applicants for our trainee scheme, we would be unable to satisfy the Government's strict resident worker requirements for granting work permits to foreign nationals.
"As such, our policy was to not consider any trainee applicant who would require a work permit in order to work lawfully in the UK.
"Osborne Clarke takes its responsibilities as an employer very seriously and we constantly strive to ensure our policies and practices do not discriminate either directly or indirectly in any area of our business.
"In light of the ruling, we have already re-assessed our position on this issue to ensure that our policy complies with the original tribunal's ruling."
Racheal, Devon around 1 month ago