Case 2302987/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Lesley Taylor First v Mane Limited Second Respondent: Jonathan Gray — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302987/2020
- Decision date
- 13 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clarke
- Venue
- London South Tribunal
- Panel members
- Miss M Foster-Norman, Dr S Chako
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Lesley Taylor First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant worked for the First Respondent as a Fragrance Accounts Manager from 28 August 2008 until her dismissal on 26 March 2020. The Tribunal accepted the written contract and job description as accurate, including the expectation that she would attend the Haywards Heath office when not visiting customers or other offices, and found that the Respondents’ repeated requests for more regular office attendance, clearer communication, more collaboration and better record-keeping were reasonable and linked to the business needs of the role.
The age discrimination complaint centred on conversations about retirement. The Tribunal found that, from late 2013 onwards, the Second Respondent asked about the Claimant’s retirement plans for legitimate succession and workforce planning reasons, not to pressure her to leave. It rejected the Claimant’s evidence that she had been told she “owed” retirement or should go, and found that the discussions were not less favourable treatment because of age. If it had been necessary to consider time limits, the Tribunal said the retirement discussions formed conduct extending over a period ending on 18 July 2018 and would otherwise have been out of time.
The Tribunal found that performance concerns were genuine and had developed over time, particularly in relation to communication, teamwork, attendance, use of office time, expenses and the Claimant’s limited development of business beyond PZ Cussons. Informal management escalated to a performance improvement plan in July 2019, a final written warning in November 2019 and further PIP objectives in December 2019. After the February 2020 review, the Respondent concluded that the objectives had not been met and dismissed the Claimant for capability on 23 March 2020, with the appeal rejected in May 2020. The Tribunal held that the dismissal was for a potentially fair reason, was fair under section 98(4) ERA 1996, and that age was not a material factor in the decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim against the First Respondent only. The Tribunal found the dismissal was for capability/performance, was within the range of reasonable responses, and followed a reasonably fair procedure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination claim against both Respondents. The Tribunal found the retirement discussions were legitimate succession/workforce planning and that age was not a material factor in the performance management or dismissal. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim for notice pay was withdrawn on 8 November 2022. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.13(2) Equality Act 2010 legitimate aim
- Igen v Wong two-stage burden of proof
- Hendricks continuing act
- s.123 Equality Act 2010 time limits
- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Burchell test
- band of reasonable responses
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.