Palladino v Reed in Partnership
An Employment Tribunal has found that various incidents could not be direct age discrimination or harassment, including an allegation that younger colleagues wanted a work Christmas party to involve “clubbing”.
Facts
Ms Palladino made various claims of direct discrimination and harassment relating to incidents at work. She was 45 at the time of the events, and worked with a team of colleague who were all younger than her, with one exception. She claimed that the conflict and dispute she experienced in the workplace was solely due to her age, and relied on a list of specific events.
Decision
The Judge struck out a number of her claims for having no reasonable prospects of success. They were neither a detriment for direct discrimination, nor examples of harassment.
A remark that Ms Palladino “had a lot of experience” was factually correct.
Responses “I am young” from colleagues when asked if they had children may have implied they were younger than Ms Palladino, but were not a detriment.
An offer from a colleague to climb on a chair to put up wall decorations for a party because she was “more agile” did not have a link to age.
Disagreement with Ms Palladino’s suggestion for a Christmas party venue, which Ms Palladinodescribed as younger colleagues wishing to go “clubbing”, was simply her being disagreed with.
Disagreement about use of a training room did not have any link to age.
Claims for victimisation after submitting a grievance and constructive dismissal were allowed to go ahead to a full hearing.
The judgment is available here
Palladino v Reed in Partnership Ltd, case number 3303463/2022 (7 July 2023)