Vexatious claimant allowed to proceed
Despite having made more than 30 “vexatious” claims at the Employment Tribunal previously, a dyspraxic jobseeker has been allowed to raise a further claim. The applicant has argued that his dyspraxia – also referred to as developmental coordination disorder – meant he was unable to complete an online application, and that the company he was applying to join failed to make reasonable adjustments for him. The issue related to his inability to interact with online forms, password characters and drop-down menus and so he requested that the company allow him to submit an oral application.
The company responded to the applicant, asking him to confirm which elements of the application form he required assistance with and he failed to confirm this, instead insisting on making an oral application.
A review of the case noted that this same claimant has 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. However the Judge ruled that the claim should not be struck out and has allowed it to proceed.
Despite the number of previous claims made by the claimant, it was not possible without further investigation to determine on a summary basis that his claim that he was put at a substantial disadvantage by being asked to complete an online application – was false..
A previous claim which was thrown out against the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA) related to the applicant not being shortlisted or interviewed for a position. He had 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 the applicant “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, the applicant withdrew 17 separate claims because of his “lack of knowledge of the requirements to advance a claim”.