Ms L Millen, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2024

The claimant alleged that she was treated less favourably because of age when the respondent required her to attend a formal absence management meeting during sickness absence. She compared her treatment with a younger colleague who had also been absent with stress and anxiety but had not been required to attend a similar meeting.

The tribunal found that the claimant and comparator shared some circumstances, including mental health-related absence and reaching an absence-management trigger. It also found a material difference: the comparator was known to the respondent to be disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, and the respondent had adjusted the absence management policy for that reason. The claimant was not considered or known to be disabled at the relevant time.

The tribunal found no facts from which it could conclude that age influenced the respondent's decisions. It accepted the respondent's explanation that the meeting was called under the absence management policy to understand the claimant's health, likely return, and possible support, and that the difference in treatment arose from the comparator's known disability and related adjustments. The age discrimination claim was dismissed. The respondent's costs application was also dismissed because the tribunal did not find the claimant had acted unreasonably or that the claim had no reasonable prospects, although it described the claim as weak.