An Employment Tribunal dismissed an age discrimination claim which argued that a Council worker had been sacked because of a stereotypical assumption about the behaviour of older men.
Facts
Mr Uddin had been employed as a deputy team leader in the Family Intervention Programme at the London Borough of Ealing (“the Council”).
Mr Uddin was shadowed by a 26 year old female university student on a 3 month work placement. Mr Uddin he had not been her official mentor or supervisor. During a work event in November, Mr Uddin was alleged to have unwanted sexual remarks towards the student. He was alleged to have pushed her while they were alone together in the disabled toilet.
After a lengthy investigation and disciplinary hearing, Mr Uddin was dismissed in April 2017.
Mr Uddin alleged that those involved in his dismissal process made stereotypical assumptions about the behaviour of older men. He brought a claim arguing that this was direct age and sex discrimination, and that his dismissal was unfair.
Decision
The Tribunal dismissed Mr Uddin’s claim of age discrimination.
Less favourable treatment
Mr Uddin claimed that he was subject to less favourable treatment as a result of his age – the less favourable treatment being his dismissal, and the comments by the investigator that he was a “married man”, a “senior manager” and a “senior member of staff”.
The Tribunal held that, while there was a considerable age difference between Mr Uddin and the student, the Council’s decision was about Mr Uddin’s abuse of power rather than his age. The Tribunal commented that he was an established member of staff and had mentored the alleged victim on two cases: “It was not that she was young, but that she was a student”.
The Tribunal therefore held that Mr Uddin had not suffered less favourable treatment because of age. His claim therefore failed at this point.
Justification
Notwithstanding the fact that Mr Uddin’s claim of age discrimination had already failed, the Tribunal commented on justification.
The Tribunal held that the police report had standard box factors to tick, and one was age difference. The officers had identified an age difference of “10-14 years”. In assessing the seriousness of an alleged assault, it was not irrelevant to take account of age, and the risk of abuse of seniority meant it was to be considered – it was a proportionate way to measure a legitimate aim. When considering a legitimate aim, the Tribunal will assess whether the aim is legal, non-discriminatory, and represents a real, objective consideration. To be ‘proportionate’ the action must be no more than necessary to accomplish the objective. The Employment Tribunal considered here that control of abuse of seniority is a legitimate aim, and as such, it was proportionate to mention age in the police report.
For these reasons, the Tribunal could not conclude that Mr Uddin was discriminated against because of age. His claims of sex discrimination and unfair dismissal were also not upheld by the Tribunal.
The judgment is available here.
Mr J Uddin v London Borough of Ealing, Case Number 2206904/2017