Firing a 60 year old woman because she would not be a “good fit” in a “younger team” was direct age discrimination.
Facts
Ms Winschief began employment on 18 November 2014 as a Production and Shipping Administrator. She was in her late 50s at this time.
Mr Thompson (Ms Winschief’s manager) called her into his office on 14 June 2017 stating that he struggled to see she would fit in with the new “younger team” he was looking to create and that he didn’t think she would be a “good fit”.
At this point, Mr Thompson offered her a sum of money and said she should agree to leave the company rather than going through a disciplinary process. No performance or conduct issues were raised. Mr Thompson had previously told colleagues that he “wanted to get [Ms Winschief] out.”
On 12 December 2017 Ms Winschief and other members of the team were informed that their roles were being made redundant. Ms Winschief’s role would be split into two new positions. She applied for both of the new roles but was not successful.
Ms Winchief’s employment terminated on 9 January 2018. She was 60 years of age.
Ms Winschief brought a claim of direct age discrimination in relation to her dismissal.
Decision
Because the claim of direct discrimination according to age was also made outside of the 3-month window the Tribunal had to consider whether it would be just and equitable to extend the permitted period for the claim. The Tribunal decided that in this instance it would be just and equitable to extend time for the claim. The Tribunal then went on to consider the substantive merits of the case.
In considering this claim, the Tribunal relied on three pieces of evidence:
Ms Winschief’s lack of success in applying for either of the new positions created by the split in her job role.
The comments made by Mr Thompson that Ms Winschief would not fit the younger team he was building.
The “underhand” threats of disciplinary proceedings made by Mr Thompson in an effort to convince Ms Winschief to leave the company.
These points of evidence led the Tribunal to conclude that the redundancy was being used as a cloak for dismissal which was decided upon, at least partially, by Ms Winschief’s age.
The Tribunal upheld Ms Winschief’s claim and awarded her compensation of £13,129.20. Ms Winschief other claims of unlawful deductions from wages and unfair dismissal were dismissed.
The judgment is available here.
Ms J Winschief v SRS Realisations 2017 Ltd