A man who showered the Employment Tribunal has been left to face the cost of his action s after the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed four appeals on claims of unlawful discrimination under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, based on the terminology used in job advertisements (Berry v Recruitment Revolution and others).
The claimant, John Berry, was the subject of an article in the Times, in February this year, in which it was claimed that he had made more than 60 claims of age discrimination against employers and recruitment agencies because they were responsible for job advertisements targeted at younger people, for example by referring to ‘school leavers’ or ‘recent graduates’. It was reported that he was believed to have received thousands of pounds from those who chose to settle rather than fight the claims.
Each of the four cases the EAT heard that a recruitment agency had replied to Mr Berry’s communication regarding a job as a junior administrator, inviting him to send his CV for consideration by its client and indicating that the advert had been mis-typed. It was not intended to exclude particular applicants and should merely have said that school leavers and graduates would be considered. Mr Berry did not in fact apply for the posts offered.
Mr Justice Underhill went on to make a general point that those who try to exploit discrimination legislation purely for financial gain are liable to find themselves facing liability for the costs of the party they are attempting to sue.