Facts

Mr Lynch started work as a HGV driver with Harkers Transport Limited on 24 May 2016.

In April 2017 he applied for a renewal of his licence but after considerable delay it was not renewed. Mr Lynch believed he could keep driving until he was informed not to.

At the end of May 2017, Mr Harker (who was in charge of the company) became aware that his insurance policy did not cover persons over 70 years of age. Mr Harker informed Mr Lynch that he was no longer able to drive for the company. Mr Lynch’s true age was 67 but Mr Harker genuinely believed Mr Lynch to be over 70 at the time. After realising the error Mr Lynch was promptly told he could come back to work which he did on 5 June 2017.

In July 2017 Mr Lynch was involved in a minor collision and at this point Harkers Transport Limited became aware that Mr Lynch’s licence was due for renewal and was with the DVLA. In August 2017 Mr Lynch was told he could not drive until he could prove that he could drive. He was offered no more work by Harkers Transport Limited.

He brought claims of direct and indirect age discrimination.

Decision

The Tribunal found that Mr Lynch did not suffer from direct or indirect age discrimination.

Direct discrimination 

The Tribunal held that the primary motivation for telling Mr Lynch that he could no longer drive was the fact that the insurers would not cover him. In the Tribunal’s word, “that was enough to raise age discrimination”.

The Tribunal moved on to discuss whether this could be objectively justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The Tribunal held that the aim was to comply with the requirements of the Road Traffic Act that drivers be insured. This was clearly legitimate. The Tribunal held that it was proportionate to prevent Mr Lynch was working because there were no other jobs that he was able to do.

The Tribunal therefore dismissed the claim of direct discrimination.

The Tribunal commented that the way in which Mr Lynch was informed he would no longer be allowed to drive was “not best practice”. Employers should establish the facts before taking action.

Indirect Discrimination

The Tribunal did not spend much time considering this claim.

The Tribunal held that the same justification defence established in relation to direct discrimination applied here. Accordingly, it dismissed the claim of indirect discrimination.

The judgment is available here.

Mr DE Lynch v Harkers Transport Ltd: 2501608/2018