Mr C L Medlock v Koru Kids Limited — 2020

The claimant presented claims of age discrimination, sex discrimination and other payments after applying for work with the respondent as a nanny. His claim form included an email exchange in which he asked whether the refusal of work was because he was a man, and the respondent replied that it had plenty of male nannies and was looking for more experience than he had.

The tribunal initially issued a rule 27 notice on the basis that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success because no particulars had been given from which the tribunal could conclude that any viable claim existed. The claimant then responded, saying that he had screenshots of the job advert stating that no experience was required and that the respondent had changed its reasons in emails and would not give a valid reason for refusing him employment. The judge accepted that the response should be treated as a retrospective variation of time under rule 5, or alternatively as an application to set aside an unless order under rule 38(2).

The tribunal accepted that, in principle, giving incorrect or contradictory reasons for refusing a job can support an inference of discrimination. On that basis, the sex discrimination claim was allowed to proceed to a further case management hearing. However, the judge held that nothing in the claimant's response related to age and that there was no basis for any claim for other payments, so those claims were dismissed under the rule 27 notice. No monetary award was made in this decision.