In person. For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant was employed as the respondent’s Operating Manager from 7 September 2019 until his dismissal on 3 April 2020. The respondent said the role was redundant because there was no longer a requirement for it and the food and beverage department was being restructured to remove duplication and simplify reporting lines. The tribunal recorded that the respondent’s witnesses were unreliable on some matters, but said that credibility issue did not affect the outcome of the discrimination claims.

The tribunal found that the claimant’s comparators were not apt comparators: Dave Heath, Ross Jones and Steven Speller were in entirely different roles for the age claim, and Sian Gover worked in office administration for the sex claim. It also found that other employees of mixed ages and genders were made redundant on the same day as the claimant, which was inconsistent with an inference that the decision was taken because of age or sex.

Applying the burden of proof approach under the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal held that there was no prima facie evidence that the claimant’s age or sex played any part in the redundancy decision. It accepted that the respondent had carried out a review of the organisation between January and March 2020 and had concluded that the claimant’s role could be removed and his functions dispersed to junior staff as a commercial restructuring decision.

The tribunal also rejected the suggestion that the refusal to fund a training course or the decision not to place the claimant on furlough amounted to age or sex discrimination. It found that the training request was declined because the course was not relevant to the claimant’s role, and that furlough decisions were commercial decisions. The claimant’s appeal was heard and responded to, and the tribunal dismissed both discrimination claims.