R + V Allgemeine Versicherung AG (AV), a German company, advertised graduate trainee jobs. The graduates were required to have relevant work experience and a good university degree in one of a few specified fields, including in law. The degree must have been completed within the last year or be due to be completed in the coming months.
Mr Kratzer, a qualified lawyer and former manager with an insurance company applied for a graduate trainee legal position. His application received an automatically generated rejection as he was not a recent graduate. He complained demanding €14,000 compensation for age discrimination.
AV apologised for their automatically generated rejection and invited him to interview. Mr Kratzer declined the interview and suggested that his future at AV could be discussed following settlement of his compensation claim.
In the German courts, Mr Kratzer claimed age discrimination and additionally sex discrimination as he discovered that AV had employed only four female trainees, despite the genders of the 60 plus applicants being evenly split. The German court stayed the proceedings and referred the following questions to the European Court of Justice (ECJ):
The ECJ confirmed that the purpose of the Directives is to protect those seeking employment or already in employment. An individual who submits a job application with the sole purpose of seeking compensation for discrimination does not benefit from the protection provided by the Directives. They are not entitled to claim its protection or compensation.
Individuals applying for jobs with the sole purpose of bringing a claim for compensation are unusual, but it does happen. All applications should be assessed fairly and objectively. Whilst this case provides reassurance that spurious claimants, seeking only compensation, may be rejected by the courts, it does highlight the potential danger of automated responses.
In this case, Mr Kratzer's vexatious and compensation driven claim was identified by AV inviting Mr Kratzer to an interview which he refused to attend. This demonstrates the wisdom of an employer being pragmatic and trying to take steps to offer to continue with a recruitment procedure, even where they are faced with the prospect of a claim. That diligence ultimately provided AV with credible evidence that Mr Krasker's application and subsequent claim were disingenuous and only for compensation.
Employers should review their recruitment documentation and ensure that their job advertisements and selection criteria in particular are fair and non-discriminatory. Particular care should be taken with any requirements which could be indirectly discriminatory, so in this case, the requirement to be a recent graduate.