Case 1404549/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Crompton v Eden Private Staff Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1404549/2019
- Decision date
- 2 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Matthews Representation
- Venue
- In Chambers
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Crompton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Crompton, who was around 57, worked for Eden Private Staff Ltd from 1 March 2018 until her dismissal with notice expiring on 21 June 2019. She moved from Administrator to Search Consultant on 7 January 2019. The tribunal found that she knew the new role would involve a probationary period and that there would be no return to her former role if the move did not work out. It accepted that probation was normal in the business and concluded that the requirement to undergo probation was not related to age.
The tribunal heard competing evidence about comments said to reference Alzheimer's disease or a 'senior moment'. It found that the remarks were not made as frequently as Mrs Crompton alleged, but that they were made on more than one occasion. It held that those remarks were age-related, unwanted, and had the effect of violating her dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The tribunal did not accept that Ms Burridge's purpose was to cause that effect, but it found the effect was present on the evidence.
On direct discrimination, the tribunal held that the Alzheimer's remarks were less favourable treatment because of age and would not have been made to a materially younger Search Consultant. It rejected direct discrimination in relation to the probation period and the dismissal. On dismissal, the tribunal accepted that performance concerns existed and found that a materially younger person in the same probationary position would also have been dismissed; age was not a factor.
The claims were presented out of time on the ordinary three-month basis, but the tribunal extended time as just and equitable. It took account of the short delay, the grievance process, Mrs Crompton's sickness absence, and the absence of any identified prejudice to the respondent. Remedy was limited to injury to feelings, which the tribunal assessed at the lower end at £900, plus interest of £100.41 calculated from 3 June 2019 to 26 October 2020, producing a total award of £1,000.41.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | Claim under section 26 Equality Act 2010 succeeded in part. The tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis and held that the age-related 'Alzheimer's' remarks were unwanted conduct that had the effect of violating Mrs Crompton's dignity and creating an offensive environment. The tribunal did not find the probation requirement to be age-related. | Upheld | Age | — |
| Age discrimination | Claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010 succeeded in part. The tribunal found that the 'Alzheimer's' remarks were direct discrimination because they would not have been made to a materially younger Search Consultant, but it rejected age discrimination in relation to the probation period and the dismissal. | Upheld | Age | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010 time limit and just and equitable extension
- s.26 Equality Act 2010 harassment
- s.13 Equality Act 2010 direct discrimination
- s.136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.