It was indirect age discrimination to effectively ban part-time work, according to an Employment Tribunal.
Facts
From May 1984 Mr Broadist was employed by HM Prison Service. On 20 March 1987 he was employed specifically as a dog handler.
Mr Broadist turned 55 in March 2017 and decided to reduce his full time hours to 18.5 hours per week. HM Prison Service employed three other part time dog handlers, who all were aged 55 or over. Mr Broadist’s dog died around September 2018, after which he was told, he could not continue to work as a dog handler.
To facilitate his continued employment as a dog handler, Mr Broadist sourced an alternative dog who was already trained. Given the dog had already been trained, the training costs for HM Prison Service would be significantly less. Regardless, the Prison Service declined the proposal.
Mr Broadist lodged a grievance. However on 4 December 2018 (and again on 18 April 2019), HM Prison Service that Mr Broadist was not allowed to return to work as a dog handler. The decision was the result of a review which has been carried out by the Prison Service. The review concluded that the dog section should only have full-time dog handlers.
Mr Broadist was required to work in an entirely different role within the Prison Service.
Mr Broadist resigned with immediate effect on 12 May 2019. Mr Broadist claimed that he faced indirect age discrimination, identifying his age group as 55 or over. Mr Broadist claimed that the provision, criterion or practice (PCP) of not allowing existing part-time dog handlers to remain part-time dog handlers if their dogs could no longer work was indirect age discrimination.
Decision
The Employment Tribunal upheld Mr Broadist’s indirect age discrimination claim
The Employment Tribunal held that the PCP had a disparate impact on those aged 55 or over, relying on the evidence provided. The evidence showed the likelihood of those aged 55 or over working part-time compared to younger workers.
The PCP had no proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, as cost alone cannot be a legitimate aim for purposes of justifying age discrimination.
Mr Broadist was awarded £69,901.80 as damages for discrimination.
The judgement is available here.
Mr S Broadist v HM Prison Service, Case No. 2410153/19, 20 May 2020