Ms M Rigby v Philip Wright (Transport) Limited — 2021

Ms M Rigby brought claims of direct age discrimination and unfair dismissal against Philip Wright (Transport) Limited. The age discrimination complaint was confined to dismissal. The claimant argued that the respondent viewed her as clinically vulnerable because of her age and that this informed the furlough and redundancy decisions. The tribunal rejected that case, finding no evidence that the respondent treated her less favourably because of age, and no evidence that the manager had a negative attitude towards her because she was 74 at dismissal; it noted that she had been recruited when already over 70 and was the oldest of the three applicants for the role.

On the redundancy evidence, the tribunal found that the respondent's business was affected by the first lockdown and that there was a 30% reduction in sales to major clients in the nine weeks after March 2020. It accepted that the respondent decided it required fewer employees in the accounts department and that there was therefore a redundancy situation within section 139 ERA 1996. The tribunal also accepted that Sylvia Palmer held a materially different, more senior role, with managerial responsibilities and experience of running the accounts function, whereas the claimant's work was lower-level and operational.

The tribunal held that it was reasonable not to pool the claimant with staff in the sales and shipping department because she could only do part of that work and would have been selected anyway. It also held that, even if the claimant had been pooled with Ms Palmer, the claimant would still have been selected for redundancy because of the respondent's need going forward and Ms Palmer's longer service and senior role. The tribunal found that the respondent's consultation and appeal process, including the 2 June 2020 call, the dismissal letter of 12 June 2020, the appeal on 17 June 2020 and the appeal outcome on 24 June 2020, fell within the band of reasonable responses for a small employer.

In conclusion, the tribunal found that the claimant had not shown a prima facie case of age discrimination and that the burden of proof did not shift to the respondent. In any event, it found that age played no part in the dismissal decision. It also found that the respondent required fewer employees in its accounts department, that this redundancy situation was the reason for dismissal, and that the redundancy procedure was fair. Both claims were dismissed and no compensation was awarded.