Former postal worker's job application rejected due to gross misconduct: victimisation claim fails
A former Royal Mail employee who was dismissed for gross misconduct claimed his application for a seasonal role was rejected because of his earlier discrimination complaints. The tribunal disagreed, finding the rejection was automatic and unrelated to any protected act.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #victimisation
- #protected-act
- #gross-misconduct
- #automatic-rejection
- #seasonal-employment
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct on 6 August 2019.
- The claimant made a bullying and harassment complaint in 2015/2016 and brought an employment tribunal claim in 2020, both protected acts.
- The claimant applied for a seasonal mail sorter role in September 2022.
- The respondent automatically rejected the application because the claimant had been previously dismissed for gross misconduct.
- The employee who processed the application was unaware of the claimant's protected acts.
- The tribunal found the rejection was solely due to the gross misconduct dismissal, not the protected acts.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as an OPG at West Midlands Mail Centre.
-
Bullying complaint
Claimant made a bullying and harassment complaint about a colleague calling him a 'lying Christian'.
-
Complaint not upheld
Claimant was informed the complaint was not upheld.
-
Dismissed for gross misconduct
Claimant was dismissed following disciplinary proceedings.
-
Appeal dismissed
Claimant's appeal against dismissal was not upheld.
-
First tribunal claim
Claimant presented a claim for unfair dismissal, discrimination, and other claims.
-
Claim struck out
The claim was struck out as out of time.
-
Applied for seasonal role
Claimant applied for a Christmas Seasonal Mail Sorter role.
-
Application rejected
Claimant was informed his application could not progress due to eligibility checks.
-
Substantive hearing
Tribunal heard evidence on the victimisation claim.
-
Judgment issued
Tribunal dismissed the victimisation claim.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether Royal Mail's rejection of the claimant's job application amounted to victimisation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010, i.e., whether it was because he had made a protected act (a bullying complaint and a previous tribunal claim).
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant had not been victimised. The decision to reject his application was made automatically by a recruitment system that flagged his previous gross misconduct dismissal. The employee who processed the rejection had no knowledge of the claimant's protected acts.
- The claim was dismissed in its entirety.
- No compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you have been dismissed for gross misconduct, a future employer may automatically reject your application based on that record, even if you have also made protected complaints.
- To succeed in a victimisation claim, you must show that the person making the decision knew about your protected act and acted because of it.
- Automatic rejection processes that are applied consistently and without knowledge of protected acts are unlikely to amount to victimisation.
This case shows the limits of victimisation protection when a former employee applies for a new role with the same employer. The claimant, a former postal worker with eight years' service, was dismissed for gross misconduct in 2019. He had previously made a bullying and harassment complaint in 2015/2016 and later brought an employment tribunal claim in 2020 – both protected acts. When he applied for a seasonal mail sorter role in 2022, his application was automatically rejected because of the gross misconduct dismissal.
Why the claim failed
The tribunal found that the rejection was not linked to the protected acts. The recruitment system flagged the claimant's previous dismissal, and the employee who processed the application had no knowledge of his complaints or tribunal claim. The decision was therefore based solely on the gross misconduct, not on any protected act. This meant there was no causal link between the protected act and the detriment, which is essential for a victimisation claim.
What could have been done differently?
For the claimant, the key challenge was proving that the decision-maker knew about his protected acts. Without that knowledge, the claim could not succeed. For employers, this case reinforces that automated rejection processes based on objective criteria (like a previous dismissal) are safe from victimisation claims, provided they are applied consistently and without reference to protected acts.
Why this matters
This case highlights the importance of establishing a direct link between the protected act and the alleged detriment. It also shows that a previous gross misconduct dismissal can be a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for rejecting a future application, even if the applicant has a history of raising complaints. For employees, it serves as a reminder that victimisation claims require evidence that the employer acted because of the protected act, not just that the act occurred.
Similar cases
Victimisation after reporting sexual harassment: a teenager dismissed for speaking up
A 16-year-old front-of-house worker was dismissed three days after her mother confronted the manager about sexual harassment by a chef. The Manchester tribunal awarded £13,886 for victimisation.
Security guard dismissed for sleeping on duty: tribunal rejects discrimination claims
A security guard who was dismissed after being found asleep during his shift at Bloomberg LLP has lost his claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination. The tribunal found the employer acted reasonably and the discrimination claims had no merit.
Harassment and victimisation: employer forwarded discrimination complaint to the alleged harasser
A former employee has won her harassment and victimisation claims after her employer forwarded her emails alleging sex discrimination to the person she complained about, who then called her. She was later dismissed.
Production line worker loses victimisation claim over absence management after protected act
A production line worker with 12 years' service failed to prove that Jaguar Land Rover victimised him by managing his sickness absence after he brought a sex discrimination claim. The tribunal found the employer's actions were not because of the protected act.