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.

ET Failed to Consider Context in Victimisation Claim, EAT Rules

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld a woman’s appeal against the dismissal of her complaint of victimisation, finding that the Employment Tribunal (ET) had adopted too narrow a definition of what could constitute a protected act and had not sufficiently analysed the context in which the complaint that was said to be a protected act was made. The woman had worked for a pharmacy business since 2001. In 2018 she moved to another of the business’s stores, where she was the only black…

Workplace Horseplay and Employers’ Responsibilities – Guideline Ruling

Irresponsible horseplay in the workplace can cause serious injury, but to what extent should employers be held indirectly – or vicariously – liable for such behaviour? The Court of Appeal considered that burning issue in a guideline case. A fitter was bending down to pick up a length of steel when a workmate placed two pellet targets on a bench close to his right ear. The workmate struck the targets with a hammer, causing a loud explosion. As a result, the fitter suffered noise-induced hearing…

EAT Reinstates Claims Struck Out for Failure to Comply With Order

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld an appeal against the striking out of a man’s claims after he failed to comply with a case management order, finding that the Employment Tribunal (ET) had failed to consider whether a fair trial was still possible and that an unless order should have been made instead. The man had brought a number of claims including disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment and victimisation. The ET considered that it was not…