Mr. L. Garcia v Landbased Ltd, trading as J.P Pharmacy — 2020

At a remote preliminary hearing on 29 January 2021, Employment Judge Goodman considered the respondent's application to strike out the claim and, alternatively, for a deposit order. The case arose from a job application for a picker and packer role in which the advert stated 'Language: Romanian (required)'. The claimant had applied online on 27 February 2020, ticked that he spoke Romanian, and later brought proceedings alleging race discrimination; the tribunal allowed amendments to add indirect discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 and victimisation.

The tribunal held that the claim form and address details were sufficient and rejected the respondent's formal objection on that basis. On the direct discrimination claim, it found that the claimant faced insuperable difficulty because he had ticked the Romanian language box on the application form. The tribunal said that, on the material before it, he could not show that he had been treated less favourably because of race, and it did not accept his speculative challenge to the screenshots showing the application.

The indirect discrimination claim also failed. The tribunal accepted that a Romanian language requirement could disadvantage people who did not speak Romanian, and that people not of Romanian national origin would form a large part of that group, but held that the claimant could not show personal disadvantage because he said on the application that he spoke Romanian. The tribunal said it was unnecessary to decide whether the requirement pursued a legitimate aim or was proportionate, because the claimant had not shown the required disadvantage.

The victimisation allegation failed because there was no evidence that the respondent knew about the claimant's earlier tribunal claims during the recruitment process. The tribunal considered the respondent's argument that the claim was vexatious, but did not accept that description on the facts before it. It struck out the claims under rule 37 as having no reasonable prospect of success. Had it not done so, it said it would have considered a deposit order and, on the claimant's means evidence of about £800 per month income and about £200 disposable income, would have ordered a £50 deposit.