Man 'exploited' law to make £35,000 from 100 disability complaints

by · Mail Online

Christian Mallon has been out of work since 2019, but in that time he has received £35,000 from over 100 disability complaints. 

The 49-year-old has been accused of exploiting employment legislation for his own monetary gain after applying for countless jobs he is unqualified for and threatening to take employers to court for turning him down. 

His complaints revolve around the fact that in 2014 he was diagnosed with dyspraxia – a condition which he says makes it difficult for him (among other things) to fill in online forms and therefore means he comes across poorly in writing. 

He has also been diagnosed with autism and more recently with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). 

On his CV, he informs firms that his disabilities mean that he needs to make his application by phone, and he requests interview questions in advance. When this request is rejected, he threatens to take the employer to court. 

Such a scheme has seen Dr Mallon, who was described by a judge as having a profession in victimhood, win around £35,000 in out-of-court settlements in the last five years.

Christian Mallon seems to have alighted on a career as a professional victim, a role that appears to have netted him at least £35,000 in dividends, a figure he disputes
The 49-year-old (pictured) has been accused of exploiting employment legislation for his own monetary gain after applying for countless jobs he is unqualified for and threatening to take employers to court for turning him down 

To anyone with little understanding of discrimination law, this may appear as a huge abuse of the system, but Dr Mallon denies this and insists he is just sticking up for himself. 

MailOnline spoke to a law expert to get their own view on the case and spell out exactly what the law says around such a divisive topic. 

Read More

Is the man with a lucrative career in victimhood proof our compensation culture is out of control?

Karen Jackson, is the managing director of didlaw and is a leading expert in disability discrimination law. 

She told MailOnline that while the law requires employers to make reasonable adjustments for job applicants during the applications process, it is up to the employer to decide what is reasonable. 

Employers should ask job applicants whether they require any reasonable adjustments so they can take part in the recruitment process. 

It is also on the employer to justify why they will or will not make an adjustment if an applicant decides to take the employer to an employment tribunal.

Ms Jackson said: 'If they can demonstrate to an Employment Tribunal or other judge that there was a good reason not to make the adjustment they will not have discriminated against a person with a disability.

'In recruitment employers must be aware of any testing that adversely impacts people with disabilities. For example, if part of a job application requires written testing an employer may need to make adjustments for an applicant who is dyslexic.'

But, Ms Jackson added: 'If the applicant cannot demonstrate from their CV and previous work experience/qualifications that they are suitable for the job then the employer does not have to pursue the application simply because the applicant has a disability.'

'If an unsuitable applicant presents a disability discrimination claim however an employer is going to have to defend it because the tribunal is unlikely to strike it out without hearing evidence which adds to the nuisance value for employers.'

On his CV, Dr Mallon informs firms that his disabilities mean that he needs to make his application by phone, and he requests interview questions in advance. When this request is rejected, he threatens to take the employer to court (Stock image)

Ms Jackson said it can be 'extremely difficult' for applicants to prove that they were refused the job because of their disability. 

Instead, she would advise against pursuing such a claim as 'it is a difficult case to prove' and can also be costly.

Ms Jackson added that employment tribunals also have the power to order a complainant to repay the costs of the employer if they have brought 'a vexatious or misconceived claim'. 

She continued: 'We know there are litigants, usually litigants in person, people who are not legally represented, who routinely pursue claims. The difficulty with weeding them out at an early stage of litigation is that tribunals are very reluctant to strike out discrimination claims without hearing evidence however fanciful they might be.

'It is the same with anything in life, there are people who will abuse the system for personal gain if this is what is happening.'

'One of the reasons I encourage employer clients to defend unmeritorious claims this is because it is important to demonstrate that simply because someone has issued a claim the company is not going to pay them to make it go away. 

'We know there are people who threaten claims purely to get money – these people do a very great disservice to people who have genuinely suffered disability discrimination at work.'