Hello and welcome back to our case of the week. Last week, we looked at an unfair dismissal case where the judge ordered the Claimant to be reinstated and awarded £22 000 in compensation after a prank gone wrong.

This week, we look at the case of Ramos v Nottinghamshire Women’s Aid Ltd & Another. The Claimant, Mr Lorenzo Ramos was described by the Employment Tribunal (ET) and Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) as a ‘serial litigant’, indeed he has featured in our case of the week before!

From afar it appeared that the Claimant was acting for the public good, however, the Claimant claimed loss of earnings and injury to feelings on job advertisements that he did not even apply for.

Mr Ramos’ motive for continuously bringing discrimination claims was questioned by the Tribunal. Cui bono?

The answer is found in a previous judgment against the Claimant, in the case of Mr L Ramos v Lady Coco Ltd t/a Samela’s Fresh Hot and Cold Food (Lady Coco).   The ET stated in that case, that Mr Ramos was solely using the Tribunal to seek money from the Respondent.

During these proceedings, the Claimant confirmed that he was the Appellant in yet

another case, the case of Mr L Garcia v The Leadership Factor Limited where he used his middle name ‘Garcia’ instead of his actual surname ‘Ramos’.  After that serial claim but in different name, the serial litigant’s claim failed to snap and crackle, but instead went pop.

It appeared that the Claimant, would use his surname Ramos in some cases and in other claims he would use his middle name Garcia.  The Claimant, at the case management hearing initially refused to confirm or deny whether his name was Garcia. His reason for not answering questions regarding previous proceedings under different names was to protect him from victimisation. A camouflaged name was cover for deception.

Here, Mr Ramos bought a claim against the first Respondent, a registered charity for a women’s refuge that provides services for women, young people, and children.

The second Respondent was a director of the first Respondent. The Claimant, despite not applying for the role, bought a sex discrimination claim for an advertisement made by the first Respondent for a “female finance and admin worker”, a women’s refuge is clearly within the genuine occupational qualification of the Equality Act 2010 and the Respondent was fully entitled to recruit females only at a refuge where women were fleeing male domestic abuse.

The Respondent made an application for strike out, or alternatively for a deposit order on the grounds of no reasonable prospects of success. The Employment Judge rejected a strike out application but imposed a deposit order against the Claimant.

The Claimant made an application for a deposit order against the Respondent based on bias and procedural errors, which was rejected by the Employment Judge.

The Claimant appealed against the deposit order, the refusal for reconsideration, and the refusal to grant a deposit order against the Respondent.

The Claimant’s representative argued that the ET’s decision to impose a deposit order was inadequate and did not take into account all the relevant information.  More so, the Claimant’s representative argued that the appeal should be considered on its merits and not the Claimant’s history of failed claims.

Whilst the Tribunal agreed that the Claimant made a valid point, Mr Ramos’ modus operandi was relevant in this appeal because his previous failed claims demonstrated his lack of genuine interest in the job advertised.  Prior claims were similar fact evidence.

The EAT addressed the other grounds of appeal by stating that the Claimant’s argument of the ET erring in law was unarguable and unfounded.

Furthermore, the EAT concluded that even if a full hearing had taken place, there is no requirement for the ET to consider every piece of evidence and argument. The EAT considered the grounds of appeal against the Respondent in previous claims, such as Lady Coco to be mostly repeated.  The EAT held that the ET’s decision to impose a deposit order against the Claimant was based on correctly applying the correct test to identify the poor prospects of success in the matter.  As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

Takeaway Points

The Employment Judge had imposed a deposit order on the Claimant based on the poor prospects of success, which was within her discretion to do so.

The EAT concluded that the ET’s decision was correct in imposing a deposit order.

The EAT dismissed the appeal because the Claimant could not successfully prove grounds of biasness, victimisation, or the ET’s erring in law.  This was seen as another example of the Claimant’s ‘vexatious’ behaviour.

It would appear that the Claimant’s real occupation was to make claims based on discrimination at the recruitment stage. The flaw in his approach was that he had no intention of being recruited as he already had a job, serial litigant, with the ability to grift an essential requirement for that role.

If you or someone you know are dealing with a similar issue, please contact us for further assistance.