Rachel Sunderland v Superdry plc — 2022

Rachel Sunderland, a knitwear design specialist, worked for Superdry from September 2015 until July 2020. She brought unfair dismissal, direct and indirect age discrimination, and harassment claims; the indirect age discrimination claim was withdrawn before the merits decision and dismissed by order on 15 September 2021.

The tribunal found that Superdry's promotion framework for Senior and Lead Designer roles was unclear, especially as to cross-category work, minimal referral, and the level of leadership or management required. It accepted that the claimant worked across more than one category, could work with minimal referral, and had prior management experience, and it rejected much of the respondent's explanation as an after-the-fact rationalisation. It also found that the respondent's reliance on flight-risk thinking and on ambiguous criteria operated to the claimant's detriment, and that a similarly valuable younger designer probably would have been promoted.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the claimant was given an unreasonably heavy workload in summer 2019 when she took on women's knitwear cover during maternity leave, alongside her own work, with only limited and intermittent assistance. It found that the non-promotion, the workload, the comparisons with younger colleagues, and the later treatment around the Centre of Excellence and Pen Tool cumulatively amounted to a fundamental breach of mutual trust and confidence, and that the claimant resigned in response to that breach.

On the discrimination claims, the tribunal held that the respondent directly discriminated against the claimant because of age, contrary to ss13 and 39(2)(b) and (d) Equality Act 2010, by failing to promote her and by subjecting her to detriment. It also found harassment because the same age-related conduct was unwanted, violated her dignity, and created a hostile, degrading and humiliating environment. In remedy, the tribunal awarded a basic award, financial-loss compensation, injury to feelings, and interest, and then grossed the award up to a final total of £96,208.70. The written judgment contains an inconsistency in the headline basic award figure, but the extracted amounts follow the arithmetic that matches the final total; no recommendation under s124(2)(a) was made.