Vexatious Claimant Rightly Subject to Costs Order
The Employment Appeal Tribunal in Scotland has dismissed a claimant's appeal against the dismissal of his sex discrimination claim, and the imposition of a costs order against him.
Background
In the case of Ramos v Lady Coco Ltd, the claimant (Mr Ramos) brought a Tribunal claim for sex discrimination relating to a job advert the respondent had placed on Gumtree. The advert was for a Chinese restaurant in Glasgow, and asked for "female takeaway staff".
The claimant did not apply for the position. He claimed he was deterred from doing so because of the discriminatory content of the advert. Instead he claimed compensation at the Employment Tribunal for injury to feelings and loss of earnings.
Decision
At the merits hearing, the sole issue was whether the claimant had a genuine desire to apply for the position. If he did have a genuine desire to apply, he had been unlawfully discriminated against. If he had no such genuine desire, he would not have suffered less favourable treatment so his claim would fail.
The Tribunal found that he had no genuine desire to apply for the position. The claimant had no connection with Scotland or interest in moving to Scotland. His professional background did not lend itself to the position. He had also been searching nationwide for similar job adverts and bringing multiple Tribunal claims in relation to them. His sole aim was to seek money from respondents by bringing Tribunal claims.
On the basis that he had no genuine desire to apply for the role, the Tribunal rejected the claim and granted a costs order in favour of the respondent to compensate for the time spent preparing for the hearing.
Appeal
The claimant sought to appeal to the EAT. At the paper-sift stage, no question of law was identified so he was notified no further action would be taken. He then exercised his right to have that decision heard by a judge. A hearing was convened and the question for the EAT was whether the appeal identified any question of law from the Tribunal decision that meant it should be permitted to proceed to a full hearing. No such point of law was identified and so the EAT concluded its jurisdiction was not engaged.
Learning Points
This is an extreme but nevertheless useful reminder of the need for claimant job applicants to have a genuine desire to apply for a post in order to bring a successful discrimination claim.
It also reminds employers not to place discriminatory job adverts which identify one gender or another without justification.