Job Seeker's Age Discrimination Claim Dismissed After Tribunal Exaggerations
A 71-year-old job applicant who boldly declared himself "the most qualified person in the United Kingdom" has seen his age discrimination claim comprehensively rejected by an employment tribunal. David Hughes, who sought work in scientific fields, initiated legal action against the Science Recruitment Group after failing to secure positions through their agency.
Unsuccessful Application and Legal Action
Mr Hughes registered with the recruitment agency in August 2020, expressing interest in roles across science, engineering, clinical, pharmaceutical, food, renewable energy, biotech, chemicals, and medical devices sectors. A senior consultant at the company contacted two previous employers for references, receiving negative responses from both organisations that declined to provide recommendations.
The consultant consequently decided against putting Mr Hughes forward for any positions, citing concerns that poor references could damage client relationships. This decision prompted Mr Hughes to allege age discrimination, claiming the agency had "blacklisted" him because he was "too old" for consideration.
Tribunal Findings and Judicial Criticism
During proceedings at the Birmingham tribunal, Employment Judge Geraldine Flood delivered scathing criticism of Mr Hughes's evidence and conduct. The judge noted he was "prone to exaggeration" and presented claims that were "nonsensical" in nature. His testimony was described as inconsistent, illogical, and changing significantly over time.
Particular attention was drawn to Mr Hughes's fluctuating claims about email correspondence, with estimates ranging from 200 to as many as 1,750 messages received from the recruitment consultant, when only a handful were actually produced as evidence. The tribunal accepted the consultant's assertion that finding such a volume of suitable roles would have been impossible within the relevant timeframe.
Questionable Claims and Background Revelations
The hearing revealed several concerning aspects of Mr Hughes's background and claims. Despite boasting about being a qualified lawyer, this assertion proved to be entirely unfounded. More seriously, it emerged that Mr Hughes had previously been convicted for blackmail, attempting to pervert the course of justice, and attempting to obtain a pecuniary advantage by deception, serving a prison sentence in 2008 for these offences.
During cross-examination, Mr Hughes adopted what Judge Flood described as a "haranguing and repetitive" approach despite multiple warnings. He even made unsubstantiated allegations against the agency's legal representative, suggesting she was unqualified because she had never attended the University of Derby.
Evidence of Discrimination Lacking
The tribunal found no credible evidence supporting Mr Hughes's discrimination claims. Judge Flood emphasised that the recruitment consultant had no knowledge of Mr Hughes's age, as this information was never provided during registration. "Whatever the reason for any treatment, it therefore cannot have been because of his age," the judge concluded.
The tribunal accepted the consultant's explanation that the decision not to put Mr Hughes forward for roles stemmed directly from the negative responses received when seeking references from previous employers. "That was clearly and plainly the reason why he was not put forward for any jobs," Judge Flood stated in her ruling.
Previous Tribunal History
This was not Mr Hughes's first appearance before an employment tribunal. In previous proceedings against a different employer, he had been branded an "unreliable and incredible witness" by the presiding judge. His pattern of making extravagant claims about his professional standing continued in this most recent case, with repeated assertions about being exceptionally qualified nationally.
The tribunal dismissed all of Mr Hughes's claims that he had been discriminated against and harassed because of his age, finding no factual basis to support these allegations. The case highlights the importance of credible evidence in employment tribunal proceedings and the consequences of exaggerated or unfounded claims.
