An Employment Tribunal found that a 54-year-old employee did not suffer age discrimination despite being made redundant 12 weeks before being able to access his pension.
Viewing entries in
Employment Tribunal
A decision to allow a younger employee to work from home was a one-off act and it was not age discrimination to permit it.
A Tribunal has found that there was no age discrimination in a case involving a 42 year old beauty therapist.
A debt recovery officer employed by a local council failed to establish that his dismissal for absence constituted direct age discrimination, or victimisation.
An advertisement aimed at candidates looking to join “our young and energetic team” was not direct age discrimination.
Two care assistants could not show any unfavourable treatment related to their age after they resigned following an investigation into their poor treatment of residents.
A hospital did not directly discriminate on grounds of age by subjecting a project assistant manager over the age of 55 to a performance-management process, which resulted in the termination of her employment.
An older NHS worker did not suffer indirect age discrimination when she was moved department following concerns about her sparse note taking.
There was no unlawful indirect age discrimination in a housing association requiring a support worker under the age of 35 to work out his notice period.
There was no direct age discrimination in a local authority’s decision not to promote a 60-year-old employee to a project manager role after interview, despite her having better qualifications and more experience than the successful candidate.
A 21 year old worker suffered direct age discrimination after his manager called him a “little boy”.
Facts
Mr Kisitu began working for Inclusive Care Support Limited as a Support Worker in August 2016. He provided support for individuals with mental health and/or learning disabilities. This was his first job and he was 19 years old when he began working.
On 3 August 2017 Mr Kisitu had an altercation with his line manager, Mr Gardner. Having just had his birthday Mr Kisitu was 21 years old. During this altercation, Mr Gardner was verbally abusive. In particular, Mr Gardner, who was 37, called him “f***ing stupid kid” and said “you are a little kid in fact a boy” and “I have the power to get you fired so keep your mouth quiet little boy”.
Mr Kisitu submitted a formal grievance to complain about this. Mr Kisitu was later dismissed in December 2017 after a lengthy period in which his employment status with Inclusive Care Support was uncertain.
He brought a claim of direct age discrimination and harassment in relation to the treatment by Mr Gardner, and a victimisation claim in relation to the lengthy period of uncertainty regarding his employment. At the hearing Mr Kisitu also referred to other occasions on which Mr Gardner had called him names prior to 3 August 2017, including an occasion in May 2017 when he made it clear to Mr Gardner that his conduct was unwanted.
Decision
The Employment Tribunal (ET) upheld Mr Kisitu’s claims of direct age discrimination, harassment and victimisation.
There was some dispute as to the facts, but the ET preferred the evidence of Mr Kisitu. As such, the ET saw this as a clear and obvious case of direct age discrimination. In verbally abusing Mr Kisitu, using insults directly related to Mr Kisitu’s age, Mr Gardner was clearly treating Mr Kisitu less favourably. No justification was offered so the direct age discrimination claim was upheld. The ET also held that the insults constituted age-related harassment.
The ET further held that there followed a lengthy pattern of victimisation as a result of Mr Kisitu’s grievance. The ET also upheld Mr Kisitu’s race discrimination claim.
The full judgment is available here.
Mr S Kisitu v Inclusive Care Support Ltd: 3200241/2018
A 37 year old job applicant’s age discrimination claim has been struck out by the Employment Tribunal for being “fatally flawed”.
The “we treat everyone that way” defence – also known as the “bastard” defence – helped in part to defend a claim of discrimination, but calling someone “too old” for the job was found to be age-related harassment.
An age discrimination claim was struck out because there was a lack of evidence to demonstrate any reasonable prospect of success.
A job advert seeking “newly qualified HR professionals” did not cause age discrimination because the potential applicant suffered no detriment.
Although a belief that insurance cover prevented a 67 year old from driving was erroneous (the policy actually prevented 70+ year olds from driving) it was not age discrimination to stop him from driving. A justification defence succeeded.
A doctor left a pension scheme to avoid tax penalties. Years later, his employer set up a scheme to compensate those affected. It wasn't indirect age discrimination to limit the retrospective effect of the scheme.
An 88 year old woman who was sacked has become the oldest person to win an age discrimination claim.