Facts

Mrs Wilson’s was employed at Countrywide Group PLC (“Countrywide”) as an IT Systems Trainer within the learning and development team.

On 5 March 2018, Countrywide announced a restructuring with a reduction in the number of employees. Mrs Wilson was on holiday.

Mrs Wilson’s line manager sent her an email on 7 March 2018 stating, “if it offers any reassurance, there is a role secured for an IT Trainer under both retail and London which has been ear mapped for both you and Laura”.

However, on 6 April Mrs Wilson received an email which led her to believe that there was no role for her. The belief was based on the description of the role being the London role which at the time was filled by Laura Marini-Goodwin, aged 39. Both Mrs Wilson and Laura Marini-Goodwin interviewed for the role.

There was a meeting held between Mrs Wilson and Kelly Wilson on 17 April 2018. The events of this meeting were disputed. Mrs Wilson alleged that her line manager had told Mrs Wilson that it was not worth her applying for the remaining role. Mrs Wilson claimed that she should not put herself under unnecessary stress at her age. Mrs Wilson’s line manager had a different version of events, claiming it was in fact Mrs Wilson who brought up her own age and claimed it was not worth her applying for the role as she felt too old to learn the new systems.

Mrs Wilson asked whether the role could be available on a job share basis. Countrywide refused this request.

Mrs Wilson was made redundant on 29 June 2018 at the age of 55. Mrs Wilson claimed that she was made redundant because of her age. Mrs Wilson also claimed that Countrywide’s refusal to allow the role to be a job share was direct age discrimination.

Decision

The Employment Tribunal dismissed all allegations made by Mrs Wilson.

The Employment Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence that Mrs Wilson’s line manager told her that it was not worth her applying for the role. The Employment Tribunal further confirmed that even if that comment had been made, there was no evidence that it was because of Mrs Wilson’s age.

In relation to the refusal to allow for the role to be a job share, the tribunal found that the rejection did not amount to direct age discrimination either. The reason for rejecting the job share was because it was unworkable without the other party to the job share being interested. The Employment Tribunal held that Mrs Wilson was not as successful during the interview process as other candidates and that is why she was made redundant. Her age was not a factor.

The judgment is available here.

Mrs T Wilson v Countrywide Group plc, Case Number: 3202193/2018, 19 February 2020