Welcome back to our case of the week. Last week we looked at whether you could be harassed by a person without even knowing it! Today we are looking at a recent case involving vexatious litigation and looking to see whether a claim can be brought against an employer without even applying for a job.

The Claimant in this case, one Lorenzo Ramos, had seen an advert for a job online. The advert, titled ‘Takeaway female staff needed’, was for a Chinese restaurant owned by the Respondent, Lady Coco Limited T/A Shamela’s Fresh Hot and Cold Food. The advert read as follows:

‘A takeaway female staff who can speak English fluently is need to join us at Shamila’s cafe near the beautiful area of Ruchill park. The candidate needs to help in customer service and helping in the kitchen. The selected candidate also needs to work during the weekend full time but he/she will have 2 days off during the week‘.

Despite not actually applying for the job, he brought a claim against the company for injury to feelings and loss of earnings.

The Respondent, resisting the claim, pointed out to the tribunal that the Claimant’s contact address was over 400 miles away from the required place of work. The Claimant also resisted the Tribunal’s attempt to list the hearing remotely, which was critical as the director for the Respondent was in China during the proceedings.

The Tribunal did not take kindly to the Claimant or his submissions. Their finding of facts showed the apparent lack of interest for the position, his lack of willingness to move to Scotland, and his lack of enquiries for the position. No less than 12 other claims brought by the Claimant on similar grounds were also mentioned by the Tribunal, showing the sheer quantity of claims that were being dealt with from Mr Ramos. Despite being reminded on multiple occasions that his conduct would have a direct impact on the result of his proceedings, the Claimant also refused to answer questions about his applications to similar jobs.

While stating that claims of discrimination could be brought by job applicants, the protections afforded by the Equality Act do not stretch to those who had no genuine interest in the position. Quoting from a case in the European Court of Justice: ‘the purpose of the legislation is not to provide a source of income for persons who complain of arguably discriminatory advertisements for job vacancies which they have in fact no wish or intention to fill. Those who try to exploit the legislation for financial gain in such circumstances are liable to find themselves facing a liability for costs’.

The Claimant, having his claim dismissed at first instance, brought an appeal. Claiming that, as the Respondent was living in China and the hearing was performed remotely, he had not given permission for images or video to be ‘sent’ to China. Along with other submissions that the Tribunal thankfully does not provide in their judgment, the Claimant also argued that as the Director was from China they could not possibly understand the rule of law in the UK. Why? Good question.

Unsurprisingly, the appeal was dismissed.

The Takeaway Points

Wagamama and Sick Leave

For those of you with genuine issues that require a Tribunal hearing, I imagine you will not be best pleased to hear of the sheer volume of claims that have been submitted that had no merits to them.

However, for employers who have vexatious claims brought against them, there is a small comfort in knowing that the Tribunal recognises these claims for what they are and will grant Preparation Time Orders (orders requiring the opposing party to pay an amount representing the time spent preparing the case) to dissuade claims of this type from being brought in future. Let us hope that this prevents similar claims of this kind being brought in the future… 20th times the charm I suppose?