• Home
  • Our Services
  • Employment Tribunals
  • Employment Contracts
  • Disciplinary & Grievance
  • Attendance & Performance
  • Flexible Working
  • Latest News
  • Articles & Guides
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Employment Law Services
  • Employment Law Clinic
  • >
  • Discrimination
  • >
  • Caution Needed when Advertising Vacancies

Caution Needed when Advertising Vacancies

It’s been reported that a serial litigant is plaguing employers that are not cautious about job vacancies they advertise. According to The Sunday Times, 7 February, John Berry is believed to have earned thousands of pounds from his actions.

With the ease of online filing for employment tribunal claims, reports suggest at least 60 companies have been the subject of claims by Berry, based on words like “school leaver” or “recent graduate” in their job advertisements, with Berry then offering to settle the claim for various amounts.

It is easy for employers to fall foul of equality laws when advertising, and among the employment legislation they need to consider is the “Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006″. These regulations came into force on 1 October 2006, and prescribe that:

“…a person (A) discriminates against another person (B) if–

(a) on grounds of B’s age, A treats B less favourable than he treats or would treat other persons, or

(b) A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which he applies or would apply equally to persons not of the same age group as B, but–

(i) which puts or would put persons of the same age group as B at a particular disadvantage when compared with other persons, and

(ii) which puts B at that disadvantage,

and A cannot show the treatment or, as the case may be, provision, criterion, or other practice, to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”

While Berry has had claims struck out, the cost of responding to an employment tribunal claim would appear to persuade some employers to settle without a fight.

There are occasions when there will be a genuine occupational requirement of a vacancy pertaining to age; in the absence of this, employers should treat all applicants equally. Berry is understood not to have even applied for many of the vacancies that he went on to complain about, so while he has only had limited success, employers should exercise caution when advertising positions, and if they do face an employment tribunal claim, get professional advice on how to respond to this – for these misconceived and vexatious claims, it will often prove much cheaper to defend the claim rather than meet the unreasonable demands of people like Berry.

Filed under: Discrimination, Employment Tribunals by Employment Law Clinic           Post created on: February 9th, 2010

« The State of HR, 2010 Survey
Another Age Discrimination Serial Litigant (And a Clear Judgement for Employers) »
  • Employment Law News Latest Entries

    • Most Glaringly Obvious Judgment Ever? S38 Employment Act 2002 Is Clearly A Duck!
    • Complicating Employment Laws Even More
    • Overtime Worked should be counted in average pay for holiday pay
    • UK has better than average days paid annual leave in the G20… and the EU #GE2017 #UKemplaw #BankHolidays
    • TUPE ELI is limited to s.1 Statement of Particulars, not whether payments are contractual/non-contractual
  • Employment Law News Archives

  • Categories



Testimonials | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

Copyright © 2008-2021 Employment Law Clinic Ltd • Kemp House • 160 City Road • London • EC1V 2NX • 020 3397 2979