Frank Aliyu v Tesco Stores Limited
[2024] EAT 185
Lorenzo Ramos v Lady Coco Limited T/A Shamela's Fresh Hot and Cold Food
13 July 2023
[2023] EAT 99
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A man sued a restaurant for a job ad that only wanted women. The judge didn't believe him, saying he only wanted money, not the job. The appeal court agreed and said the man was wasting everyone's time.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Lorenzo Ramos (Appellant) appealed Employment Tribunal (ET) decisions dismissing his sex discrimination claim and granting a Preparation Time Order (PTO) to Lady Coco Ltd (Respondent).
- •The claim stemmed from a Gumtree advertisement for "Takeaway female staff." Ramos claimed he was deterred from applying due to the discriminatory wording.
- •The ET found Ramos lacked credibility, had no genuine interest in the job, and brought the claim solely for financial gain.
- •The ET granted a PTO to the Respondent for £697, citing Ramos's vexatious and unreasonable conduct.
- •Ramos appealed, alleging various procedural and legal errors by the ET and claiming bias.
Legal Principles
Direct discrimination requires less favourable treatment, and the claimant must have a genuine interest in the advertised job.
Equality Act 2010, section 13; Keane v Investigo UKEAT/389/09; Berry v Recruitment Revolution UKEAT/0190/10; Garcia v The Leadership Factor 2022 EAT 22
A PTO can be granted if a party acted vexatiously, abusively, or unreasonably, or if the claim lacked reasonable prospects of success.
Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, rules 75-79, 84; Hossaini v EDS [2020] ICR 491; Brooks v Nottingham UKET/0246/18; Daleside Nursing v Matthew [2009] All ER (D) 99
Appeals to the EAT are limited to arguable questions of law.
Employment Tribunals Act 1996, section 21; EAT Rules 1993, rule 3(10)
Outcomes
Ramos's appeals were dismissed.
The appeals raised no arguable questions of law; the ET's findings of fact were permissible and its discretionary decisions were justified.
Ramos's conduct was deemed vexatious.
His repeated failure to comply with procedural directions, disregard for court orders, and persistent, meritless applications demonstrated a willful abuse of the legal process.