In person For the v Respondent — 2024

The claimant was employed by the respondent as a Band 5 Executive Assistant. After Ms DB resigned, the respondent split the EA to Chair and CEO role into two six-month Band 6 interim posts, EA to the Chair and CEO and Committee Manager, and invited the existing EAs to apply. The tribunal found that the June 2022 and August 2022 selections were made on the basis of the applications, CVs and interview performance, and that the claimant's applications were weaker than those of the candidates selected. It also found that the decision-makers were not focused on age when they carried out the process.

All four direct age discrimination complaints were found to be out of time. The tribunal refused to extend time on just and equitable grounds, noting that the claimant had followed the respondent's grievance process first, knew about tribunal time limits, still waited about a month after ACAS early conciliation ended before presenting the claim, and that the respondent would be prejudiced by having to defend events from 2022. The tribunal also said that, if it had had jurisdiction, the age discrimination complaints would have failed on the merits because the appointments were made for non-discriminatory reasons.

The tribunal accepted the respondent's concession that the claimant's email of 8 August 2022 and grievance appeal letter of 23 November 2022 were protected acts, although it noted that the August email did not expressly allege age discrimination. It rejected the claimant's remaining victimisation complaints, finding no detriment and no causal connection in relation to the handling of the roles, the grievance process, and later workplace events.

On the grievance process, the tribunal found that the notes from the 3 November 2022 meeting were standard notes and were accurate in substance, that the Nicky Wild report was a management document that had already been withheld before the first protected act, and that Ms Muchemwa was an appropriately independent external investigator. It also found that Mr Macmillan had not laughed at the claimant, and that Ms Muchemwa's interventions were to manage fairness rather than to prevent the claimant or witnesses from speaking.

On the later allegations, the tribunal found there was no vacancy for Jon Spencer's Executive Assistant in November 2022 because Mr RB already held the role, that the Gateway meeting comment simply reflected that arrangement, that the CMS drinks allegation was not made out, and that the 12 December 2022 email-invite issue was ordinary administrative practice that was promptly corrected. The allegation about the 4 November 2022 email trail was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed.

The respondent succeeded on its costs application. The tribunal found that the claimant had acted unreasonably in relation to bundle preparation and that three victimisation allegations had no reasonable prospect of success. It ordered the claimant to pay the respondent £2,450 in costs.