LATEST AGE DISCRIMINATION CASES — age discrimination
Viewing entries tagged
Harassment
Asking the date of an example given when answering an interview question was not direct age discrimination or age-related harassment.
Comment
A comment that someone was “too old” could be age-related harassment.
Comment
There was no evidence that a young female Polish worker was subject to direct age discrimination or age-related harassment.
Comment
Telling someone to “grow up” was not direct age discrimination.
Comment
A Facebook job advert stating “Over 25s only” was enough to shift the burden of proof in a direct age discrimination claim, but the employer was able to disprove discrimination.
Comment
A 21 year old worker suffered direct age discrimination after his manager called him a “little boy”.
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
Comment
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.
Comment
An Employment Tribunal has found that there was no age discrimination in a case in which it was alleged a worker was referred to as “young, pretty and single”
Comment
An Employment Tribunal has rejected the claim of a former employee against Virgin Active, who argued that she was both forced to resign and subjected to harassment because of her age.
Comment
Age-related harassment cases are rare. In this case, an Employment Tribunal has held that giving someone extra work and setting them objectives did not amount to less favourable treatment because of age, nor was it harassment.
Comment
An estate agent subjected an employee to direct age discrimination when they told her she was “better suited to a traditional estate agency”.
Comment
The phrase “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks” was not age discrimination (nor was it religion or belief discrimination).
A failure to investigate a Breakfast Supervisor’s complaints of age discrimination was, in itself, age discrimination.
Two sisters were the victims of direct discrimination after they were treated less well than their older, male colleagues.
A finding of age related harassment was upheld on appeal.
Calling an 18 year old a “teenager” was, despite being factually accurate, an age discriminatory comment as it was used in a derogatory way.
Telling employee “you’re too old!” was direct age discrimination.
Bombardier had unlawfully discriminated against an older PA, but had not harassed her.
ET finds that comments made to a 52 year old Sainbury’s manager that implied she was ‘past it’ was direct age discrimination and awards compensation of £124,182.
This Scottish case was one of the first to be decided in relation to harassment on age grounds.