Remarks made by a manager to a 57-year-old employee, referring to her having Alzheimer's when she had forgotten something, were found to be both harassment and direct age discrimination.
Facts
Mrs Mary Crompton originally joined Eden Private Staff Ltd as an administrator in March 2018. In August 2018 there was a vacancy for a Search Consultant within the team and Mrs Crompton asked if she could be considered for the role. She switched roles in January 2019 and began a probationary period.
Mrs Crompton made some errors in external communications and her probationary period was extended. In May she sent an external email in which she apologised for having a “senior moment”. She was dismissed for “inadequate performance during extended probation period” on 24 May 2019. She was 57 at the time of her dismissal.
On 14 June Mrs Crompton raised a grievance relating to her dismissal. During the grievance investigation, she mentioned that age “might have been a factor” in her dismissal and alleged that her manager Ms Burridge had made comments about her having Alzheimer’s when she had forgotten something.
Decision
The Tribunal found that the comments about Mrs Crompton having Alzheimer’s were both harassment and direct age discrimination.
In relation to harassment, Ms Burridge stated that she had only made the comment “that will be the Alzheimer’s Mary” once and that she was sorry for this comment. However, the Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that these remarks had been made on more than one occasion. The Tribunal had no doubt that this comment is age related – the meaning was clear that Mrs Crompton’s memory is defective, and this is due to her age. It was also clear that Mrs Crompton did not want comments of this sort. Mrs Crompton found these comments hurtful and it was reasonable for her to find the comments intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive.
The Tribunal also found that the comments were an act of direct discrimination. The same remarks would not have been made to a Search Consultant who was materially younger. The comments were detrimental, and less favourable treatment of Mrs Crompton because of her age.
Mrs Crompton had also claimed that the requirement to undergo a probationary period and the dismissal were acts of harassment and direct discrimination. The Tribunal disagreed, finding that the probationary period was standard procedure, and the dismissal was due to performance issues rather than age.
Mrs Crompton was awarded £900 (plus interest) for injury to feelings caused by the comments, on the basis that the actual injury was slight. The Tribunal took into account she the fact she had referred to herself as having a “senior moment” in an external communication, had herself taken account of age when matching clients and candidates, and had not complained about the remarks at the time or in her grievance letter.
The judgment is available here.
Crompton v Eden Private Staff Ltd, case number 1404549/2019, 2 November 2020