Man banned from Employment Tribunals service after 40 vexatious claims
A man who made more than 40 “vexatious” claims at the Employment Tribunal has been banned from using the Employment Tribunals Service.
David Taheri was handed a Restriction of Proceedings Order (RPO) of indefinite notice, on the basis that he has habitually and persistently, and without reasonable grounds, instituted vexatious proceedings before the Employment Tribunal. The RPO will prohibit him from making claims against employers without the permission of the EAT or the Judge of the High Court.
The ET ruled that Taheri’s “modus operandi” was to apply for a job and, once refused, bring a claim against the putative employer on the basis of age, race and/or disability discrimination. Taheri set out limited or no basis for his accusations, valued the claim for thousands of pounds, but would then seek a settlement of a few hundred pounds, frequently making threats of adverse publicity or regulatory referral. None of Taheri’s claims have been successful at a final hearing.
The EAT found that Taheri was engaged in a “weaponisation” of the ET process, after the majority of his 43 claims, brought between 2012 and 2020, were struck out after either having no reasonable project of success, being withdrawn by Taheri, or after the claims were settled out of court.
The first claim, for £1,000 and made on 18 October 2012, was brought against Orchid Pubs and Dining Ltd after Taheri was rejected from a chef role. The pub claimed that he was not invited to interview because of the “pushy and insistent nature” of his emails.
In 2013, he claimed £5,000 against a clothing retailer after he was rejected from a part-time sales assistant role. The retailer claimed he had turned up at one of its shops and had been staring “menacingly” at staff through the window.
On 31 January 2018, he sought “at least £10,000” after being invited to interview for a sales role at Parkdean Resorts Ltd, and being, in his words, “fobbed off again and again”. The holiday company had written to Taheri informing him that the position was no longer available due to full staffing levels.
On 28 February 2018, Taheri lodged separate claims for £25,000 of damages from both Stoneacre Ltd and Wilson and Co. Motor Sales Ltd. The claim against Stoneacre was settled on 10 April, and the claim against Wilson and Co was withdrawn after Taheri failed to attend a preliminary telephone hearing.
On 28 February 2018, he also lodged a third claim of £25,000 after being rejected from a sales role at Perry Motor Sales Ltd. The employer described how he had been “overbearing” during an initial group exercise, and had emailed threatening litigation unless he was invited to another interview. The claims of age and race discrimination were later dismissed and Taheri was ordered to pay the company £1,000.
On 13 December, he claimed £50,000 for age discrimination after being turned down for a sales adviser role at Virgin Media Ltd. After receiving a rejection letter from the employer, he had replied stating “this is disability discrimination”, copying in “BBC Watchdog and ACAS”. The claim was struck out after he failed to pay a £750 deposit.
Over the course of 2018, Taheri attempted to secure “at least” £485,000 in compensation from 17 different employers, and made ten separate claims of £25,000.
The Tribunal ruled Taheri had “used the ET process to put pressure on would-be employers to enter into low-value settlements” and “habitually and persistently brought proceedings without any reasonable grounds”, causing would-be employers “inconvenience, harassment and expense out of all proportion”.
Taheri, who has relied on protected characteristics of age (belonging to an older age group – the precise age specified has, inevitably, changed over the history of the litigation in question), race (he describes himself as of Iranian ethnicity), and disability (he has been diagnosed with prostate cancer), contends that this application – which he believes to be made in collusion with solicitors who have acted for some of the employers in his claims – is a vexatious attempt to violate his Article 6 ECHR rights. He says his only intention has been to find purposeful employment rather than be driven into debt; he feels he has been treated unfairly in past hearings and denied real justice and the present proceedings are “just another attempt by an unfair system to silence an older disabled person who is finding it impossible to find work”.
Taheri says he is just asking to be treated fairly, maintaining:
“If I was younger without cancer, I am sure I would not be encountering the constant rejection with employment applications”.
He has always “tried to mediate with companies that have blatantly discriminated against me because of my age and disability”, first asking them to reconsider their decision and making claims as “a last resort because of the reticence of employers to refuse to enter into any dialogue”. He says his claims “are not made purely for monetary gain”; the remedy he seeks is to be offered employment.
related content
