In the late eighties, three out of fourteen teachers were short-listed for a promotion to Head of Sciences in the London Borough of Newham. Two were Caucasian, the other, Qureshi, was of Asian origin. The hiring committee failed to adhere to two hiring policies: the open reference policy and the Equal Opportunities Policy; it neither gave the candidates sufficient notice to respond to any adverse comments in their references (of which Qureshi had several), nor did it not provide the hiring panel with ethnic monitoring statistics, equal opportunity training, a list of objective job criteria, or even a full job description.
When Qureshi was not hired, he went to an Employment Tribunal (ET) claiming that the Borough had discriminated against him on the basis of race when it decided not to give him the job and when it breached the equality of opportunity policies. They made an inference of racial discrimination based on the following reasoning:
The two policies in question should have been applied to all candidates. One of the candidates was an ethnic minority. Therefore racial discrimination was the underlying, hidden, reason that the panel failed to apply the policies.
An Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) overturned that decision; the committee's non-adherence to the policies had to do with administrative incompetence, not racial discrimination. The Appeal's Court agreed with the EAT (Qureshi v London Borough of Newham  IRLR 264, CA).