Discrimination claim was vexatious

A claimant had his discrimination claims ruled against him as he had not genuinely intended applying for or taking up an advertised job, ruled the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Ramos v Lady Coco Ltd [2023] EAT 99. He also failed in his appeal against costs awarded against him.

Ramos saw an advertisement for a job seeking female takeaway staff. He didn’t apply for it, arguing that he had been deterred because of the advert’s discriminatory wording. He brought claims in the Employment Tribunal (ET) for compensation for injury to feelings and loss of earnings.

The respondent noted that Ramos provided a PO box number as his contact address, approximately 400 miles from the restaurant’s Glasgow location. This suggested he had no genuine interest in the position.

The ET heard the claimant had made many similar claims previously. It dismissed his claims, finding him to be “wholly unconvincing” and motivated solely by financial gain.

It allowed the respondent’s application for a “Preparation Time Order” (PTO), ordering Ramos to pay some of the respondent’s costs. Ramos sought a PTO against the respondent, which was refused.

Along with other legal steps and applications, he appealed these decisions to the EAT. The EAT ruled against him finding, among other things, that as he had no genuine interest in applying for the job, his grounds of appeal identified no arguable point of law. He had conducted proceedings vexatiously, amounting to an abuse of process.