Facts

Mr Ramus worked for Mrs Douetil as a “Curator/Manager” at her estate from 1995 to 2017. Initially, he worked simply as a bird keeper of exotic wildfowl on the estate. In 2014, Mrs Douetil’s husband died and the estate was subsequently run by her eldest son, Mr Douetil.

For financial reasons, Mr Douetil began to diversify the estate’s sources of income, and increased the number of weddings and corporate events held on the grounds. As a result, the duties of Mr Ramus changed. His job title was changed to “Bird Keeper and General Estate Management” and he was now required to assist at events and film or take photographs where necessary.

In late 2016, Mr Douetil and Mr Ramus had a meeting regarding Mr Ramus’ future plans. Mr Douetil mentioned retirement, which he framed as “a lovely option” and “wise…due to your health”. Mr Ramus responded by saying that he intended to work until his “official retirement age”.

In a meeting in June 2017, Mr Ramus was told that a decision had been made to terminate his employment. In the meeting, a discussion arose about how exactly he was to be dismissed and whether it was by reason of redundancy, or whether Mr Ramus would prefer it to be classed as an ill-health retirement.

The reason agreed upon was redundancy. This was the true reason, as there was a reduction in the requirement for someone to carry out work in the care and management of birds, which was a substantial part of Mr Ramus’s work.

Following his dismissal, Mr Ramus brought claims of unfair dismissal and direct age discrimination.

Decision

The Employment Tribunal (ET) dismissed the age discrimination claim.

The ET stated that there was nothing about the conduct or content of the 2016 meeting which would suggest discrimination. It commented that “…there may be circumstances in which mention of retirement is such as to give rise to a potential inference of age discrimination, but this is not one”. Because of this, the burden of proof did not shift, and the claim failed.

The ET did find that there had been a failure to consult with Mr Ramus before the redundancy decision. This made the dismissal unfair and the ET ordered a compensatory award of £2,793.88.

The judgment is available here.

Ramus v Fleur C Douetil: 3303731/2018