Mr M Golden v Premier Recruitment Derby Limited — 2020

At the hearing in Nottingham on 10 to 12 February 2020, Employment Judge Brewer sitting with Mrs C Hatcliff and Mr J D Hill heard claims by Mr M Golden against Premier Recruitment Derby Limited for direct age discrimination, age-related harassment, unpaid expenses and wrongful dismissal. The claimant had initially brought an unfair dismissal claim but it was withdrawn because he lacked the qualifying period. The tribunal recorded that the respondent was a small recruitment business and that the claimant was employed from 16 April 2018 until 1 October 2018, when his employment ended with a payment in lieu of notice.

On the discrimination allegations, the tribunal found that the claimant gave no specific evidence of age-related comments and that his witness KW did not attend. Applying the Equality Act 2010 burden of proof provisions, the tribunal held that he had not established facts from which direct age discrimination or age-related harassment could be inferred. The harassment allegation also failed because the claimant said he did not mean harassment in relation to age, and the tribunal treated the complaint as a non-technical grievance rather than a protected-characteristic claim.

On the dismissal issue, the tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that there were work-related and trust concerns, including performance concerns, issues with a social media accusation, a complaint from a candidate's mother, a coffee shop interview against policy, concerns about inaccurate statements following a road accident, and concerns about the claimant's CV and claimed qualifications. The tribunal found that DR suspended the claimant on 1 October 2018 after overhearing a conversation she believed suggested a sexual relationship involving KW, but found that her concern was not the claimant's age and that IR dismissed the claimant for work-related reasons. Even if the burden had shifted, the tribunal said the respondent had shown the dismissal was not because of age or the alleged relationship.

The unpaid expenses complaint also failed because the claimant provided no particulars or evidence of the expenses and the tribunal noted that expenses are excluded from wages for the purposes of an unlawful deduction claim. The wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed because the claimant had been paid in lieu of notice and the issue had not proceeded. No monetary award was made.