Claim discrimination before you apply

[SussexSeagull]

Now that would also be discrimination!

They can claim discrimination for that once the ban expires.

[ladymuck]

Has he made himself unemployable? I assume it's common practise these days for employers to Google prospective employees. I imagine one look at his history would be enough to put most off.

Now that would also be discrimination!

[sadkingbilly]

sounds likely he's on here, somewhere.

[woody1]

Has he made himself unemployable? I assume it's common practise these days for employers to Google prospective employees. I imagine one look at his history would be enough to put most off.

[quackhandle]

That's a new one.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ore-apply-job/


He also requested being able to bypass a particular stage of the application process, to engage in post-application correspondence, and that prospective employers should ignore grammatical errors in application forms and lower the minimum competency threshold for jobs.

Others included being able to sit a written test to assess hypothetical examples, that there should not be a word limit on applications, and that they should provide advance notification of online tests and award him higher marks at a particular stage of the application process.

He also requested that employers should have provided a scholarship for him to undertake the then solicitors’ legal practice course.

"You need to make it easier for me to pass your interview tests."

And given him a scholarship? Entitled much? You have to wonder what type of upbringing he had.

qh

[SueEllen]

That's a new one.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ore-apply-job/

A serial complainer who launched discrimination action even before he applied for jobs has been banned from making further claims at employment tribunals.
Zakir Khan, a law graduate, has brought 42 claims for job discrimination against law firms and public bodies. They include some where he has not even got as far as making an application, instead alleging that the process is so discriminatory that he could not apply.

The “prolific litigant” has now been issued with a civil restraint order preventing him from bringing new employment tribunal claims and appeals arising from job applications.

The court was told that his claims success rate was “poor”, with no evidence that any of the known 42 claims he had brought over a period of eight years against law firms and public bodies had succeeded before an employment judge.

Sitting at the High Court in Birmingham, Judge Emma Kelly granted the restraining applications by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and five Government departments against Mr Khan, who represented himself at the hearing.

In her judgement, Ms Kelly said Mr Khan’s approach was similar in each of the claims, adding: “The defendant applies for a job with a given respondent. The defendant states in his applications that he has a law degree and LLM in commercial law.

When he is unsuccessful in a job application, he relies on sections 20, 21, and 39 of the Equality Act 2010 to allege a failure on a given respondent’s part to make reasonable adjustments to the recruitment process to accommodate his disabilities.

“The defendant relies on a number of disabilities – attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depression, anxiety and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. In some instances, the defendant does not even get as far as making an application for the job and alleges the application process was discriminatory, such that he could not apply.”

The adjustments requested by Mr Khan varied from claim to claim, but there were common themes including demanding that the prospective employers should replace written competency-based application forms with assessed work experience.

He also requested being able to bypass a particular stage of the application process, to engage in post-application correspondence, and that prospective employers should ignore grammatical errors in application forms and lower the minimum competency threshold for jobs.

Others included being able to sit a written test to assess hypothetical examples, that there should not be a word limit on applications, and that they should provide advance notification of online tests and award him higher marks at a particular stage of the application process.

He also requested that employers should have provided a scholarship for him to undertake the then solicitors’ legal practice course.

Ms Kelly said employment tribunals did not have the power to make civil restraint orders, but they could be issued by the High Court to protect tribunals “where a party has persistently issued claims or made applications which are totally without merit”.

She said there was a significant risk that Mr Khan would continue to issue totally unjustified claims. It was therefore appropriate to issue a civil restraint order, initially for three years.

The court was told two solicitors’ firms had made “nuisance value payments of £700 and £1,000” to settle his claims.

A counter-application by Mr Khan was dismissed as being “totally without merit”.