Background:

An advertisement had been placed on Gumtree on behalf of the respondent, which ran a Chinese Restaurant.  It stated:

‘A takeaway female staff who can speak English fluently is need to join us at Shamila’s Café near the Beautiful area of Ruchill Park.’ [Sic]

The claimant did not make an application for the position advertised citing that he was deterred from doing so because of the discriminatory nature of the advertisement.  He claimed compensation for injury to feelings and loss of earnings.  The respondent resisted the claims citing that the claimant never applied for the job and he provided a postbox number in Hounslow some 400 miles away from the establishment.  They stated that he had no interest in the role and rather was making the application to the Tribunal for financial gain.

The Tribunal at first instance rejected the claim.  They stated that the claimant was born in 1964 and came to the UK from France in the 1990s.  He had been a legal adviser, worked in a factory, restaurant as well as being a self-employed interpreter and market researcher.  He held a Masters Degree in International Trade Law and Accountancy.  He last worked in hospitality in the 1990s.  He never had any connection with Scotland nor a genuine interest in moving his life to Scotland.  As a result, it was found that the claimant had no genuine intention of applying for the position.  His sole aim was to receive money by way of compensation and therefore the claim was dismissed.

Outcome:

The claimant appealed the decision of the Tribunal to the EAT.  It was found that the claimant had raised a series of claims against employers who had had similar advertisement.  Some of those previous judgments had made it clear that the jurisdiction for unlawful adverts rests with the Equality and Human Rights Commission.  The grounds of appeal outlined to the EAT were a rehash of what was said before and there were no identifiable questions of law for the EAT to decide upon.  Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as being totally without merit.

The EAT noted that, as agreed by the claimant, he is a serial litigant and is well aware that the EAT can only decide upon points of law.  The EAT finally held that the conduct of the claimant can be described as ‘vexatious behaviour’ and the ruling was to be referred onto the registrar for consideration as to whether the conduct could be considered by the Lord Advocate.

Practical Guidance for Employers:

The first point for employers is to ensure that advertisements for job opportunities are not, prima facie, discriminatory or unfair.  However, where such a situation does arise it does not, as seen with this judgment, open the door for litigants to bring a claim even though they would have had no interest in the role.  Indeed, this claimant seemed to look out for these types of advertisement and bring claims as a result.  This is where the EAT felt it necessary to step in and refer the conduct to the Lord Advocate in Scotland as to whether it was vexatious, which may have implications on the claimant’s ability to bring claims in the future.

Full case is available here: 
https://www.gov.uk/employment-appeal-tribunal-decisions/mr-lorenzo-ramos-v-lady-coco-ltd-ta-shamelas-fresh-hot-and-cold-food-2023-eat-99