• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Dyspraxic jobseeker made more than 30 “vexatious” disability discrimination claims in 3 years

Aeolienne

Well-Known Member
(Not written by me)

EAT upholds serial claimant’s appeal after tribunal struck out discrimination case because of previous ‘vexatious’ attempts
16 Mar 2021 By Elizabeth Howlett

Experts say ruling highlights the need for HR to vet potential candidates after job hunter launches more than 30 claims in three years

A dyspraxic jobseeker who had a discrimination claim struck out after the tribunal said he had launched more than 30 “vexatious” disability discrimination claims in the space of three years will have the decision reconsidered, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has said.

The EAT remitted a 2019 ruling by the East London Hearing Centre that found Christian Mallon was not discriminated against by infrastructure consultancy firm Aecom when applying for a role at the company.

Mallon had argued that his dyspraxia – also referred to as developmental coordination disorder – meant he was unable to complete an online application, and the company failed to make reasonable adjustments for him. Mallon claimed he was unable to interact with online forms, password characters and drop-down menus and requested that Aecom allow him to submit an oral application.

However, despite Aecom’s requests for Mallon to outline what was problematic and how they could assist, he did not offer any details of his disability and insisted on an oral application.

The initial employment tribunal (ET) also noted Mallon had lost multiple tribunal claims against various employers between 2017 and 2019 – including one in which he was ordered to pay the employer costs of nearly £4,000.

Judge Burgher, who ruled on the initial ET claim, said that because Mallon had previous claims relating to similar matters against recruitment agencies and other organisations that were either dismissed or withdrawn of his own volition, this was “one of the rare cases” where the exception to the rule that discrimination clams should not be struck out applied.

He added this was indicative of a “lack of substance” to those claims and “no credible basis” to maintain them.

However, the EAT said despite the number of previous claims made by the claimant, it was not possible without further investigation to determine on a summary basis that Mallon’s claim – that he was put at a substantial disadvantage by being asked to complete an online application – was false. Nor was it possible to determine on a summary basis that Mallon already knew the claim was false.

As such, the EAT ruled that the case would be heard again by a different ET judge.

The initial East London ET heard that, on 5 June 2017, a fair employment tribunal in Northern Ireland threw out his claim of disability discrimination against the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) when he was not shortlisted or interviewed for a position. Mallon argued that he couldn’t complete the online application and had difficulty clicking on the activation button to begin his online application in an email. The tribunal did not accept that Mallon “was not familiar with the concept of clicking a blue link on his screen” and found his evidence to be “at best confused, and at worst misleading”.

The tribunal heard that, following this claim, Mallon withdrew 17 separate claims because of his “lack of knowledge of the requirements to advance a claim”. But Burgher said he found this “hard to believe” given the detailed findings of the DAERA judgment.

Burgher then brought Mallon’s claim against John Lee Recruitment in August 2018 to the tribunal’s attention, in which he was ordered to pay 50 per cent of the costs, amounting to £3,995, when he withdrew his claim. Mallon then withdrew a further 12 remaining claims from 2018-19 “as a result of the costs judgment” in the John Lee Recruitment case.

Following this, in March 2019, Mallon entered into another employment tribunal for disability discrimination against recruitment agency MBA Notts after he failed to be shortlisted for several jobs. During the hearing, employment judge R Clark pointed out that Mallon’s CV demonstrated he was highly educated and had held a number of senior positions, and that it disclosed his disability and detailed how dyspraxia may manifest.

However, Clark struck out Mallon’s claim as he was rejected for having no experience for the roles he applied for and his claim had “little reasonable prospect of success”.

Jules Quinn, partner at King & Spalding International, said the case highlights how employers could avoid finding themselves in a similar situation to the organisations mentioned above by conducting background checks on potential candidates.

“It is very easy for an employer to conduct a background check to determine what, if any, tribunal claims or cases a job applicant has brought against previous employers,” said Quinn.

But she added that acting on any findings also risked putting the employer on tricky legal ground. While “careless hiring practices” can leave an organisation exposed, Quinn also warned that taking any action against a candidate, such as not shortlisting them for an interview, could amount to victimisation.

Source: People Management
 
Ah British businesses would rather go to court than help someone with certain health conditions
 
I can't do online applications and know others who simply cannot.
 
Having read the accounts of the previous court hearings (linked in the second paragraph) I'm unable to decide whether Christian Mallon is a timewaster or is being exploited by an unscrupulous employment lawyer.
 
Ah British businesses would rather go to court than help someone with certain health conditions
When a person goes to the extent of suing other businesses and/or filing this claim or that, it seems to go beyond helping someone with certain health conditions. Places feel like he will be more of a liability than a help.


I hope I never end up in a life like this. Sounds depressing. It's good to try to find accommodations, but best and easiest to find a job and a situation that works for you on your own as much as possible.
 
While I'm sympathetic to those with disabilities this to me reads like someone just blatantly abusing the system. If that isn't actually the case then I do hope the fellow persists but it's going to be an uphill battle.
 
From the Times yesterday (behind a paywall):

Serial job applicant ‘uses AI to generate vexatious claims’​

The unemployed man has applied for 4,600 jobs over the past five years and is said to have won £35,000 in out-of-court settlements, an employment tribunal has heard

A serial job applicant accused of having made a career from suing businesses for discrimination is said to be using artificial intelligence to generate “vexatious” claims.

Christian Mallon has been unemployed for the past five years, but devotes himself to making applications for jobs for which he has “no relevant experience” and then issuing legal proceedings, an employment tribunal heard.

The tribunal was told that the 49-year-old, who has a PhD in chemical engineering, had applied for about 4,600 jobs and been involved in more than 60 legal claims.

Mallon, of Cannock, Staffordshire, was said to have been awarded about £35,000 in out-of-court settlements, despite winning only a single case, which resulted in a £2,700 compensation award.

The latest hearing was told that Mallon — who was said to have dyspraxia, autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder — insisted on a five to ten-minute telephone call to discuss any job application. Before the call, Mallon would request a list of essential criteria for the role. If a company failed to comply, he would sue for disability discrimination or failure to make reasonable adjustments, or sometimes both.

Tribunal rules state that if a judge concludes that a claimant’s case is unlikely to succeed, they must pay a deposit to continue. But Mallon admitted that he never complied, having been advised by Citizens Advice never to pay. It was said that Mallon would withdraw claims, resulting in the respondent wasting time and money preparing a defence.

Mallon is back before a tribunal, despite recently being ordered to pay £7,500 and £20,000 in costs for his “unreasonable approach” in separate cases, because a judge has allowed a claim against another company to proceed to a full hearing.

Lawyers for the company told the West Midlands tribunal in Birmingham that Mallon was motivated “not by securing employment, but by increasing his prospects of securing success in a claim to the tribunal and/or settlement” and said his use of AI in creating documents was evidence of “a vexatious proceeding”.

At a preliminary hearing, Mallon revealed that conclusions produced by AI software told him in one case that the Equality Act 2010 “could be applicable”, and that a company’s failure to respond or accommodate his requests could “indicate a failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments”.

Judge Rosalie Kight allowed Mallon’s latest claim to proceed, noting that the case could not be determined without hearing oral evidence. She dismissed arguments from lawyers for the company accused of discrimination that Mallon was an “experienced serial litigant who has brought many, many claims”.

The hearing was told that Mallon’s alleged tactic was to make an unrealistic applications “for roles for which he has no relevant experience, without producing a bespoke CV or any other documentation, and then pursues equally non-bespoke claims in respect of such applications when he is unsuccessful in securing the role or adjustments which he states he needs to be able to successfully apply”.
 
He sure is persistent. 🤔
I just keep thinking about the boy who cried wolf and wonder what happens if he tires of the pursuit of these claims and then starts looking for work in field and actually does encounter legitimate discrimination but isn't listened to because of his past cases.

This fellow also vexes me as I'm also for pursuing relevant legitimate claims of discrimination but he just gives the ND community a bad name as I'm sure there are going to be some NT's that see that and just think all ND's are trying to get a free ride.
 
We had a lawyer here jailed a few years ago for being a "serial vexatious litigant" and wasting the court's time.
 
We had a lawyer here jailed a few years ago for being a "serial vexatious litigant" and wasting the court's time.
What amazes me is that the guy has already lost a few times where he's been ordered to pay what seems to be close to what he's gained overall. Yet he still persists. That he's bringing in AI now to help him come up with things to go after, same thing that happened to that lawyer you mentioned should happen to this guy I think.
 
...same thing that happened to that lawyer you mentioned should happen to this guy I think.
There's no law against being vexatious, the lawyer was jailed for contempt of court, but the sentencing judge had quite a bit to say about using law as a weapon.
 
To me it looks like he is trying to avoid work and getting paid at the same time. But I think it would actually be less work for him to have a job. 🤔 What he is doing now sounds like a really bad and stressing full-time job with low pay.
 
To me it looks like he is trying to avoid work....
The UK has almost exactly the same welfare system we do, that bloke could be just kicking back and living the dream like the rest of us, instead it seems like he has some type of vendetta.

Being on the dole is a way of life for some people here:
(our social security department is called Centrelink)

ssrco,slim_fit_t_shirt,womens,fafafa_ca443f4786,front,tall_three_quarter,750x1000.u2.jpg
 
The UK has almost exactly the same welfare system we do, that bloke could be just kicking back and living the dream like the rest of us, instead it seems like he has some type of vendetta.

Being on the dole is a way of life for some people here:
(our social security department is called Centrelink)

View attachment 135182

Maybe that's what he is doing, a vendetta for some reason. But he should rethink what he is doing, it says he was ordered to pay £7,500 and £20,000 in costs. Difficult to buy food with minus 27 500 pounds.
 

New Threads

Top Bottom