Tribunal ruling on age discrimination claim is good news for employers and bad news for serial litigants

In the case of Keane vs Investigo and others, a Watford employment tribunal rejected a claim by 50 year-old Margaret Keane who applied for various jobs advertised as suitable for newly qualified accountants, despite being overqualified for them.

It had been reported Keane had made £100,000 from settling claims with up to 12 businesses.
 
The appeals tribunal rejected Keane's claims of age discrimination and ordered her to pay costs on the grounds that, since she was not interested in taking the job if offered, she had not suffered discrimination.  
 
According to law firm Adams & Remers, among the facts which led the tribunal to conclude that Keane's applications were not genuine were:

• lack of adequate explanation why she wanted a job aimed at someone with little or no experience
• she sent statutory questionnaires to agencies before even knowing whether her application had been rejected
• she declined an offer from one of the agencies to explore other more suitable job opportunities
• she submitted identical CVs and covering letters, with factual and typographical errors, for all of the applications
• the use of search criteria in her online searches showed she deliberately sought out ‘newly qualified' positions
• the argument that she was ‘making a stand' against age discrimination was not supported by the fact that she had reached settlement in up to half her claims

Cathy Hoar, an employment expert at Adams & Remers, said: "We have seen a lot of publicity recently about so-called serial litigants who seek out potential discrimination in job advertisements and then take the offending businesses to a tribunal, or threaten to do so.

 "It was always free to file a tribunal claim, but online filing now makes it easier and quicker to file any number of claims, and little evidence is required at the initial stage. Many employers prefer to settle such claims rather than have the hassle of dealing with them in the tribunal.
 
"There is little to stop individuals bringing claims, but this EAT decision will strengthen the hand of employment agencies and employers in dealing with serial litigants.

"Of course, the situation is different where an individual makes a genuine application for a job, even if it is made more in hope than in expectation of getting it. Employers may still be at risk of genuine discrimination claims, and this case underlines the need to ensure that job requirements are directly linked to the job in question. If you think that a particular age group or sex could be disadvantaged, double-check that the requirement is necessary and can be objectively justified, and keep a note of your reasons."