Age Discrimination, Redundancy and the Burden of Proof – Guideline Ruling

Where an older employee is treated less favourably than a younger one in a similar position, the burden shifts onto the employer to prove that age discrimination had no effect on its decision-making. An Employment Tribunal (ET) made that point in the case of an administration manager who was…

Apr 05, 2023

The man had worked for a car sales company for more than 20 years when he was selected for redundancy. He contended that his dismissal was pre-determined and motivated by his age. The company asserted that it was conducting a necessary restructuring exercise and that his selection followed a fair procedure.

Ruling on the matter, the ET found that the principal reason for his dismissal was, as the company asserted, redundancy. Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the company had to reorganise its business and had a commercial and economic reason for making redundancies.

The ET did not consider that the manager who decided on the man’s selection for redundancy was guilty of conscious age discrimination. The man was warned in advance that his job was at risk and steps were taken to conduct a fair consultation and selection process and to minimise job losses.

In nevertheless upholding his age discrimination complaint, the ET found that he was less favourably treated than a younger colleague. There was no material difference between them in terms of skills and qualifications. Given those findings, it was for the company to provide an explanation. It had failed to provide cogent evidence of a non-discriminatory reason for the difference in treatment.

Also upholding his unfair dismissal claim, the ET noted that the redundancy process lacked transparency. It could not be discerned from the available evidence whether the selection criteria were applied fairly. His dismissal also did not fall within the range of reasonable responses in that it was tainted by age discrimination. The amount of his compensation, if not agreed, would be assessed at a further hearing.

Whistleblowing Nurse’s Dismissal ‘Grossly Unfair’, Tribunal Rules

There are few things more serious in an employment context than sacking a whistleblower for performing a valuable public service. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) made that point in the case of a highly regarded nurse who was treated grossly unfairly for doing what she considered to be her duty. The nurse had an unblemished employment record stretching to 38 years and had received commendations for her leadership skills, positivity and enthusiasm. On a number of occasions, she expressed…

Workplace Banter May Be Fine, But Not If it Tips Over Into Harassment

A certain amount of foul-mouthed banter is only to be expected in a robust working environment. As an Employment Tribunal (ET) ruling showed, however, employers who allow it to tip over into hostile and discriminatory abuse are likely to pay a high financial and reputational price. The case concerned a white worker, aged in his early 50s, who was employed by a tyre recycling company. He worked as part of a small team in which white people were in a minority. He said that a younger black…

Leaky Victorian Drains Trigger Successful Unfair Dismissal Claim

It almost goes without saying that employers who fail to provide their staff with a safe working environment positively invite Employment Tribunal (ET) complaints. A case on point concerned an opticians’ shop that was afflicted by leaks and nasty smells arising from an antiquated drainage system. An optical consultant who worked in the shop suffered from multiple sclerosis. Leaks from the Victorian drains caused her particular anxiety because medical treatment she was undergoing suppressed her…