• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Race-claims lecturer beats legal ban to carry on suing after 40 discrimination claims

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Race-claims lecturer beats legal ban to carry on suing after 40 discrimination claims

    Race-claims lecturer beats legal ban to carry on suing after 40 discrimination claims
    By CHRIS BROOKE
    Last updated at 23:06pm on 18th November 2007

    It was never going to be easy stopping Suresh Deman cashing in on Britains rights culture.

    For a decade he sued universities - usually claiming racial bias over failed job applications - as he collected nearly £200,000 in payouts and cost the taxpayer an estimated £1million.

    The finance lecturer brought at least 40 cases to employment tribunals before the Attorney General last year had him declared a vexatious litigant and banned him from bringing further claims.

    That, then, should have been that. Mr Deman, however, had other ideas and this week sees him back before a tribunal, once again claiming discrimination.

    It turns out that the ban on him bringing further cases does not apply to Northern Ireland because the province has a separate judicial body.

    As a result, the 53-year-old academic is pursuing a claim dating back 11 years against the Association of University Teachers and Officers (AUT).

    The case is being heard, at public expense, at a fair employment tribunal in Belfast. It has already lasted nine days and is far from finished.

    With Mr Deman representing himself, proceedings have been delayed by a succession of objections, legal applications and complaints from the claimant.

    In his latest case, the serial litigant is claiming to have been a victim of race, religious, sexual and political discrimination. His case goes back to 1994-95 when Mr Deman was a temporary member of the Queens University teaching staff.

    The academic claims he was the victim of discrimination when the AUT failed to offer him the same legal advice it gave to another member of staff, Beverley Carroll.

    Mrs Carroll, a clerical research assistant, made a claim against Mr Deman for harassment in February 1995 and four months later the university informed him he would not be appointed full-time.

    Mr Deman, from London, is said to have been abusive to Mrs Carroll after blaming her for not notify him of a staff meeting. In the four years before his ban, Mr Deman clocked up 210 days of tribunals and was regularly accused of time-wasting tactics.

    So far in this latest Belfast case he has tried in vain to have a journalist from the Daily Mail removed from the public hearing, requested a switch to another building and accused the panel chairman of being biased against him.

    Mr Deman, who is married and from a Hindu background, is a U.S. citizen and describes himself as Indian-American. He was a teaching fellow at Pittsburgh University and got his first taste of litigation when he won £23,000 damages for his dismissal there.

    His first job in the UK was at Queens and he received £30,000 in an out of court settlement 10 years after leaving. He is believed to have applied for at least 1,000 academic posts, even though he was often unqualified.

    If he was not shortlisted or interviewed, a racial discrimination claim might follow. He often put in alternative applications under a non-Asian name such as Phil White to compare the results.

    Five universities or colleges made payouts to settle actions to avoid the expense of fighting cases and four paid damages.

    Last year, in banning him from pursuing future tribunals, the judge, Mr Justice Underhill, said Mr Deman has an obsession that he is a victim of racial discrimination which exists without reference to the evidence in any particular case.

    Source here.

    Evidently a persistent fellow

    #2
    That's his Plan B.

    Comment


      #3
      Isn't there a broader problem here, the ridiculous complexity and expense of our legal system? In the CV cases, what the hell is there about looking at a job spec and a CV and seeing if the application was unreasonably rejected that should take more than an hour or so? Why cannot this review just be done in an office instead in court?
      bloggoth

      If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'
      John Wayne (My guru, not to be confused with my beloved prophet Jeremy Clarkson)

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by xoggoth View Post
        Why cannot this review just be done in an office instead in court?
        Because office won't award him damages, that's why he goes to court.

        I think the system more or less works as he got slapped with an order preventing him from going to court, even though it seems to have taken 40 similar cases before it happened - really he should have been stung with costs after 3rd baseless accusation, but looks like some of the Unis preferred to settle.

        Comment


          #5
          A nice way to make a living. Seems far more profitable than slaving away at a CRT.
          McCoy: "Medical men are trained in logic."
          Spock: "Trained? Judging from you, I would have guessed it was trial and error."

          Comment


            #6
            Yeh my point is aTw that the simpler review should generally REPLACE the expensive court proceedings. It should only go on to court if the review panel think the case is too complex.
            bloggoth

            If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'
            John Wayne (My guru, not to be confused with my beloved prophet Jeremy Clarkson)

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by xoggoth View Post
              It should only go on to court if the review panel think the case is too complex.
              The problem with this approach is that people have right to go to court, so if this guys wants to go to court he will, so having panel wouldn't have prevented this, even though I think a few failed court cases initiated by someone should automatically lead to some kind of limits, though again this is a tricky question because denying people justice is not a right thing, but in this case the guy clearly took the piss.

              Interesting that they say he is a US citizen. Surely this means that employers can legally give preference to EU citizens?

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by AtW View Post

                Interesting that they say he is a US citizen. Surely this means that employers can legally give preference to EU citizens?
                Yep but the employers shoot themselves in the foot if they are happy to interview "Phil White" if he is also a US citizen.
                "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
                  Yep but the employers shoot themselves in the foot if they are happy to interview "Phil White" if he is also a US citizen.
                  Perhaps there is a market for a SKA v2 which would correlate sent-in CVs and highlight those that match most of text.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X