Are you a recruiter worried about what to write in a job advert? Or concerned about inadvertently discriminating against applicants on the grounds of age?
It’s a difficult area and care needs to be taken. However, some comfort can be taken from a recent case in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”), which held that serial litigants may have to pay costs if they try to exploit the Age Discrimination Regulations for financial gain.
The case before the EAT involved the same man who is alleged to have issued many cases against recruitment companies and employers alleging age discrimination in their job advertisements e.g “would suit school leaver” or “recent graduate”. I have written about the issues concerning serial litigants before (see here, here and here).
In this most recent case Mr Justice Underhill gave a robust judgment in dismissing the Appellant’s appeal stating;
“We wish, however, to emphasise that the purpose of the Regulations is not to provide a source of income for persons who complain of arguably discriminatory advertisements for job vacancies which they have in fact no wish or intention to fill, and that those who try to exploit the Regulations for financial gain in such circumstances are liable, as happened to the claimant in the Investigo case, to find themselves facing a liability for costs.
It is about time that ETs started taking a stronger line on issuing costs orders against litigants, be they Claimants or Respondents, who try to exploit the system for reward. Not only is it wrong per se but it clogs up an already overcrowded ET system that hasn’t got time to hear the genuine disputes before it.
Thanks to @Anyapalmer for bringing this to my attention via Twitter
