Mrs K Staunton v Estée Lauder Cosmetics Limited — 2022

Mrs Staunton had worked for Estee Lauder since 1992 and by 2001 was an expert consultant for the La Mer brand at Harrods. From 2017 she usually worked one Sunday a week for eight hours. After the start of the Covid pandemic, the respondent introduced cost-cutting measures and a Point of Sale Optimisation process. The tribunal found that the reduction in full time equivalent headcount at the Harrods La Mer counter meant there was a redundancy situation within section 139 ERA 1996 because the requirement for employees to carry out work of that kind had diminished.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal held that the dismissal was fair. It found that the respondent used objective selection criteria based on skills, performance and disciplinary action, that the claimant scored highest in her pool, and that the pool of experts was fair. It also found that the respondent consulted at group and individual level, held several meetings and calls, gave the claimant an appeal, and genuinely explored alternatives including reduced Sunday hours and other roles. The tribunal rejected the claimant’s arguments that furlough should have been extended, that her role should have been preserved, or that a full-time role should have been split to keep her in work. It accepted the respondent’s position that retaining her eight-hour Sunday role would have ring-fenced her from the selection process and that the business needed flexibility and continuity across the week.

The direct age discrimination claim failed because the comparator employees were full-time spa therapist and expert roles and were not comparable to the claimant’s one-day role. The tribunal found no evidence that any decision was made because of age, and it noted that the claimant would in any event have had first choice of roles because she scored highest in the selection pool. The indirect age discrimination claim also failed because the tribunal did not accept that there was a PCP of selecting for redundancy those who earned more because of length of service and experience. It found that the respondent’s criteria did not relate to pay or service, and that the evidence did not show a correlation between pay, age and who was retained.

The indirect sex discrimination claim failed because the tribunal did not find a PCP that the respondent would not retain employees working less than 20 hours a week. It found that the respondent had moved away from the initial rota proposal in consultation and made individual flexible offers, including roles of fewer than 20 hours and a reduced Sunday option for the claimant. Although the tribunal accepted the general proposition that women are more likely to have childcare responsibilities, it held that no group disadvantage or individual disadvantage was proved on the facts. All claims were dismissed and no monetary award was made.