| EAT Orders Serial Claimant to Pay Costs |
|
In the case of Keane vs Investigo and Ors, a Watford employment tribunal rejected a claim by 50 year-old Margaret Keane who applied for various jobs advertised as suitable for newly qualified accountants, despite being overqualified for them. It had been reported Keane had made £100,000 from settling claims with up to 12 businesses. The appeals tribunal rejected Keane's claims of age discrimination and ordered her to pay costs on the grounds that, since she was not interested in taking the job if offered, she had not suffered discrimination. Among the facts which led the tribunal to conclude that Keane's applications were not genuine were: • lack of adequate explanation why she wanted a job aimed at someone with little or no experience • she sent statutory questionnaires to agencies before even knowing whether her application had been rejected • she declined an offer from one of the agencies to explore other more suitable job opportunities • she submitted identical CVs and covering letters, with factual and typographical errors, for all of the applications • the use of search criteria in her online searches showed she deliberately sought out ‘newly qualified' positions • the argument that she was ‘making a stand' against age discrimination was not supported by the fact that she had reached settlement in up to half her claims The EAT ruling should show to be somewhat of landmark case. There are numerous cases of serial litigators abusing the system and this case should set a president to show that not only should such claimants be denied any out of court settlement or tribunal remedy, but should be ordered to pay costs for such a vexacious and misconstrued claim. |