AI told me how to sue you, serial job applicant told business

Christian Mallon used artificial intelligence to generate disability discrimination claims against would-be employers

A serial job applicant who sues businesses for disability discrimination is using artificial intelligence to help generate claims against potential employers, a tribunal heard.
Christian Mallon, who has been out of full-time work since 2019, tells firms he struggles to fill in online forms due to his ADHD and autism, and therefore needs to make the application by phone.
The 49-year-old also requests interview questions in advance. He has sued potential employers for disability discrimination or failure to make reasonable adjustments if they refuse his requests.
Would-be employers have accused Mr Mallon, who boasts a PhD in chemical engineering, of being a “vexatious” serial litigant.
His latest legal claim has been allowed to proceed to a full hearing – and it emerged during tribunal that he is using AI to help him make claims against companies who turn him down.
At a preliminary hearing for his new case, Mr Mallon denied trying to exploit the system, insisting he was “an experienced and determined litigant who will not be deterred from seeking justice”.
The West Midlands hearing was told Mr Mallon enquired about the role of business development manager for low-carbon and manufacturing at West Midlands Growth Company (WMGC) in September last year via email.
The next month he chased HR asking “when the oral application will happen based on the essential criteria” and later explained why he would need a phone interview, it was heard.
He sent follow-up emails complaining about lack of engagement, the tribunal was told.
After uploading the email trails to AI to analyse, the intelligence suggested that he could sue under the Equality Act 2010, claiming that the lack of response or accommodation to his requests could “indicate a failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments”, it was told.
In bold at the end of the email, it said: “Based on the emails, the lack of responsiveness or accommodation despite your clear communication about your disability and accommodation needs suggests potential breaches related to the duty to make reasonable adjustments and possibly discrimination arising from disability or indirect discrimination.”
After more than 10 emails, he sent another titled “Formal Complaint Regarding Potential Discrimination in Job Application Process” and claimed his motivation was “so this does not happen” to the next autistic candidate.
He launched these legal proceedings in December last year.
WMGC, which specialises in investment in the region, responded by making an application to the tribunal to strike it out or for deposit orders of £1,000 for each of Mr Mallon’s claims.
In its submissions, WMGC described Mr Mallon as a “very experienced serial litigant who has brought many, many claims” which are said to “follow the same pattern”.
The hearing was told: “He is unrealistic in applying for roles for which he has no relevant experience, without producing a bespoke CV or any other documentation and then pursues equally non-bespoke claims in respect of such applications when he is unsuccessful in securing the role or adjustments which he states he needs to be able to successfully apply.”
It added that he is motivated “not by securing employment but by increasing his prospects of securing success in a claim to the tribunal and/or settlement” and said his use of AI in creating documents was evidence of “a vexatious proceeding”.
The company said it was “clear” from both the advertisement and Mr Mallon’s CV that he didn’t have the skills for the role and therefore had “no hope” of getting the job.
However, Mr Mallon said his background, skills and experience were “highly relevant” but couldn’t tailor his CV to the role because of his autism, ADHD and dyspraxia.
After listening to submissions from both parties, Employment Judge Rosalie Kight has allowed the claims to proceed to a full tribunal.
“The power to strike out a claim is a draconian measure and great care is to be taken in deciding whether to exercise it and if so to what extent,” she said.
“The tribunal does not accept that [Mr Mallon]’s claims history alone demonstrates that his presentation of this claim is vexatious.
“It cannot be determined at this stage in the proceedings, without the opportunity to hear the oral evidence and for it to be challenged [Mr Mallon]’s claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments is either vexatious or has no or little prospects of success.”
The judge refused to strike out his claims as it could not be decided whether there were “little reasonable prospects of success”.