Mr J Cook v The Open University — 2025

Mr J Cook worked for the Open University through Manpower as a student recruitment and support adviser from 27 March 2023, with his assignment in the Faculty of Business and Law commencing on 19 May 2023. The tribunal found he was a contract worker within s41 Equality Act 2010. His assignment was due to end on 6 October 2023, but the respondent decided not to extend it and then ended it with immediate effect on 20 September 2023.

The tribunal accepted that concerns had been raised about the claimant on three occasions in June and early July 2023 by DTMs, including an exchange on 12 June, a call on 23 June, and concerns reported in early July. It found that Mr Daniels discussed those incidents with the claimant, but that there were no further behaviour-related conversations or documentary records between early July and 18 September 2023. The tribunal accepted the claimant’s evidence that he received no further feedback during that period and found the lack of management records meant the decision was taken without a paper trail, but held that this did not amount to something from which age discrimination could be inferred.

At the September 2023 meeting, Mr Daniels recommended that the claimant’s assignment not be extended because of attitude and behaviour concerns, and Miss Hardy accepted that recommendation. The tribunal found the respondent also extended the assignments of three of the remaining advisers, one of whom was older than the claimant, and accepted the respondent’s evidence that Mr Manu was extended because his productivity was good enough and there were no concerns about his receptiveness to feedback. The tribunal held that Mr Manu was not a proper comparator because he was not in materially the same position as the claimant, given the reported concerns about the claimant but not Mr Manu.

Applying the Equality Act direct discrimination framework and the burden of proof authorities it cited, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had not established facts from which age discrimination could be inferred. It accepted the respondent’s explanation that the assignment was not extended because the claimant was considered difficult to manage, and found that decision was not tainted by age discrimination. The complaint of direct age discrimination was therefore dismissed.