• Home
  • Resources
  • Job advert requiring female takeaway staff was not discriminatory

Job advert requiring female takeaway staff was not discriminatory

a woman serving food to a person
Peninsula Logo

Peninsula Team, Peninsula Team

(Last updated )

In Ramos v Lady Coco Ltd t/a Shamela’s Fresh Hot and Cold Food, the ET found that a discrimination claim could not succeed where the claimant was not impacted by the job advert.

 The claimant, who lived in London, saw an online job advert looking for “female staff” to work in a Chinese restaurant in Glasgow. The claimant did not apply for the job or attempt to contact the restaurant. Neither did he investigate moving to Glasgow or apply for other jobs within Scotland that might have indicated a desire to relocate. Instead, he bought a claim for sex discrimination based on the indication that the employer would not permit a man to do the role.

In examining this case, the Employment Tribunal (ET) looked closely at the motivations of the claimant, to ascertain whether or not he had a genuine desire to move to Scotland and take on this job.

The ET found that the claimant could have contacted the restaurant to enquire about the role, and given that the advert also referred to “he/she” it suggested that perhaps the employer would not only have considered female applicants.

Try Brainbox for free today

When AI meets 40 years of Peninsula expertise... you get instant, expert answers to your HR and Health & Safety questions

There was no evidence that the claimant wanted to relocate. Under questioning, the claimant said that the advert had referred to a ‘beautiful park’ and for that reason alone he wanted to take on the role and move hundreds of miles. This was rejected by the ET, who were unconvinced by his arguments. The ET stated that they believed that the claimant was using the tribunal process to seek money from the respondent.

To claim unlawful discrimination, there must be less favourable treatment, however, in this case the ET found that as the claimant had no genuine intention of applying for the role, there was no less favourable treatment. Furthermore, the ET found that the claimant was evasive, lacked credibility and had no desire to fill the vacancy in question.

The claim was therefore ill founded, and it was dismissed. A preparation time order was subsequently made which ordered the claimant to pay the respondent £697 because he acted vexatiously and unreasonably in bringing a claim which had no reasonable prospects of success.

For answers to questions on recruitment, visit BrAInbox today where you can find answers to questions like Can I ask someone's age at a recruitment interview?

  • Home
  • Resources
  • Job advert requiring female takeaway staff was not discriminatory

Related articles

  • polling station

    Blog

    What could a general election mean for employment law?

    Here's what the big three have each vowed to do should they come away with an election win.

    Peninsula TeamPeninsula Team
    • Employment Law
  • compensation pay

    Blog

    Directors involved in BHS collapse must pay £18.3m in compensation

    The High Court has ruled that two directors of collapsed retailer BHS must pay £18,364,448 in compensation to creditors to stop corporate risk-taking

    Peninsula TeamPeninsula Team
    • Dispute Resolution
  • NIC

    Blog

    Conservatives plan NICs abolition for self employed

    After a difficult week, PM Rishi Sunak has set out a raft of tax measures at the Conservative manifesto launch with plans to abolish main NICs rate for four million self employed workers

    Peninsula TeamPeninsula Team
    • Employment Law
Back to resource hub

Try Brainbox for free today

When AI meets 40 years of Peninsula expertise... you get instant, expert answers to your HR and Health & Safety questions

Sign up to our newsletter

Get the latest news & tips that matter most to your business in our monthly newsletter.