In person For the v Mr Muhammad Ali Ashraf - Director — 2020

The claimant brought sex discrimination complaints against The Gift Corner 3 Wishes Ltd and its director, Mr Muhammad Ali Ashraf, arising from a window advert saying “Female staff required”. The issue identified by the tribunal was whether the respondents treated the claimant less favourably because of sex when they advertised for a female shop worker, and what remedy, if any, followed.

The tribunal heard evidence that the claimant had seen the advert, visited the shop on more than one occasion, and secretly filmed the premises with his iPhone. It found that he had falsely told a shop worker that he was enquiring on behalf of his wife, and that he later accepted he was not doing so. The tribunal also relied on his evidence that he wanted to know whether he had been discriminated against, and on its finding that he had misled the tribunal about other Employment Tribunal cases brought in the name “L Garcia”, which substantially undermined his credibility.

On the facts, the tribunal concluded that the claimant never really wanted the job and had no genuine intention of applying for it. It found that his conduct showed a cynical attempt to profit from perceived discrimination rather than a true complaint of hurt or disadvantage. It also found that he had no shop assistant experience, that the job was below his qualifications and experience in international trade and marketing, and that there was no real prospect that he would have been appointed even if there had been discrimination.

The tribunal considered the respondents’ reliance on an occupational requirement justification under Schedule 9 of the Equality Act 2010, but held that Mr Ashraf had not discharged the burden of showing that being female was an occupational requirement or that the wording of the advert was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Even so, because the tribunal found the complaint vexatious, it struck out the claim under Rule 37(1)(a); alternatively, it said the complaint would have been dismissed. It noted that if it had found for the claimant, it would have awarded no lost earnings and only the lowest Vento-level injury to feelings award, but no award was made and the respondents did not seek costs.