College Student Required to Work Late Succeeds in Age Discrimination Claim

Mentions of age discrimination may bring to mind images of grey-haired employees being treated less favourably than their younger colleagues. As a case concerning a teenage college student showed, however, young people enjoy the same legal protection as their elders.

The student was…

Feb 01, 2023

Wood themed restaurant 718x1024

Mentions of age discrimination may bring to mind images of grey-haired employees being treated less favourably than their younger colleagues. As a case concerning a teenage college student showed, however, young people enjoy the same legal protection as their elders.

The student was delighted to find his first job as a restaurant waiter. He was contracted to work 16 hours a week, later reduced to 11 hours, and objected when his manager quite often required him to work between 11pm and midnight. He explained that his college schedule did not enable him to work so late.

After reading up on his employment rights, he mentioned to his manager that he was, because of his age, entitled to a half-hour rest break during each shift. He also pointed to the statutory limit on his working hours, including night work. He said that his manager told him that his schedule was an inconvenience and that he was required to prioritise his work over his studies. He was ultimately dismissed.

Upholding his age discrimination claim, an Employment Tribunal noted that he had to be up early, and not exhausted, in order to attend college. Contrary to Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010, the requirement to work late put him at a particular disadvantage because of his age. His dismissal followed on from his assertion of his statutory rights and was thus automatically unfair.

The student said that he had taken the job in order to help out his family and to fund his way through college. The loss of his employment led to health and emotional problems and deprived him of his sense of self-worth. His employer, who did not submit a defence to his claim, was ordered to pay him a total of £11,160, including £8,500 in compensation for injury to his feelings.

Workplace Safety – Anxious Shop Worker Succeeds in Unfair Dismissal Claim

Aggressive customers are the bane of many shop workers’ lives and those workers are entitled to have their concerns for their safety at work fully addressed by their employers. An Employment Tribunal (ET) powerfully made that point in upholding a retail worker’s unfair dismissal complaint. The customer assistant had been on sick leave for several months, suffering from anxiety and depression, prior to her dismissal. She was concerned about the risk of infection with COVID-19 at work and said…

Workplace Harassment Can Be Downright Cruel – You Don’t Have to Take It

Harassment in the workplace can descend into downright cruelty and employers who fail to stamp out such behaviour can expect to pay a heavy reputational and financial price. In a case on point, a sandwich shop worker who endured her line manager’s wounding comments received substantial compensation. The woman, who was in her probationary period at the shop, was being treated for a number of medical conditions, which amounted to a disability. Her numerous allergies required her to carry an…

Poultry Workers Not Entitled to NMW for Travel to Farms

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that poultry workers were not ‘working’ while travelling from their homes to farms where they carried out their duties and back again, and were not entitled to be paid the National Minimum Wage (NMW) for the time spent travelling. The employees worked on poultry farms around the country. Their employer provided a minibus to collect them from their home addresses each day and take them to the first farm, and take them home again from the last farm.…