Facts

Mrs Bogdanoviene was a hairstylist. She had been employed for fourteen years and was summarily dismissed on 8 April 2018. She argued that she was selected for redundancy because of her age.

In January 2018, shortly before her dismissal, she had reduced her working hours saying she was “beginning to feel her age”. At this point she was 53. Two other staff members, aged 45 and 31, were dismissed on the same day, but they continued to work in the salon. Mrs Bogdanoviene claimed this showed unfavourable treatment, and brought a claim of direct age discrimination.

Decision

The Employment Tribunal (“ET”) dismissed the claim.  Although it was true that the two other individuals who had been made redundant, Gurmeet Singh and Stacey Shrubb, were continuing to work in the salon after their dismissal, they were not doing so as employees. Mr Singh had incorporated his own hairdressing company, which rented a chair in the salon that he used to cut hair. He was not paid a salary but the company would pay rent and then keep all proceeds from his haircuts. Ms Shrubb used the chair on his behalf when he was not working, so it could be occupied all week.

The ET said that Mrs Bogdanoviene had not argued that her employer had committed age discrimination by not offering her a chair as a self-employed hairdresser. In any event, the ET went on to find that the chosen comparators did not demonstrate less favourable treatment on grounds of age. The ET pointed out that the difference between Mr Singh’s age of 45 and her age of 53 “was not a relevant difference in terms of age, suggesting that age played no role in any decision”.

The ET concluded that all three employees were dismissed for redundancy, so there was no difference in treatment, and Mrs Bogdanoviene’s dismissal was not connected with her age.

The ET expressed sympathy with Mrs Bogdanoviene about the manner of her dismissal, but found that the reason for it was the salon’s decision to cease trading because the business was unprofitable, which was unrelated to age.

The judgment is available here

Mrs L Bogdanoviene v (1) Fusion Funkymen Ltd; (2) Ms Muna Meah 3306524/2018