In person For the v Dr M Boyce (Medical Director) — 2020

At this closed preliminary hearing on 5 February 2020, Employment Judge Alliott, sitting alone in Watford, considered the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's age discrimination claims. The claimant had been employed as a Screening Physician from 1 October 2018 and resigned on 23 November 2018, with an effective date of termination of 30 November 2018. The tribunal noted that the claim was presented on 22 May 2019, after the primary limitation period, so an extension of time would have been needed for the age discrimination claim to proceed, although that question was not decided in this hearing.

The factual issue concerned the claimant's difficulty enrolling on the respondent's attendance systems, which used a finger scanner and a fob. The tribunal accepted that all employees were required to use those systems and that both sides wanted the claimant to be successfully enrolled. It also assumed, for the purposes of the strike-out application, that the claimant's allegations about how she was treated while trying to enrol would be proved, but held that those facts did not support an inference of age discrimination.

On direct discrimination, the tribunal held that the claimant's central case - that there was a perception she was less competent with technology because of her age - had no reasonable prospect of success. It found that competence with technology was not age-specific, that it was inconceivable the respondent had deliberately caused the enrolment difficulties, and that the claimant's proposed comparators were other new starters in their late 20s or early 30s. The tribunal held that she had no prospects of showing that such a comparator would have been treated more favourably.

On indirect discrimination, the tribunal identified the relevant provision, criterion or practice as the requirement to enrol on the two systems. It held that the claimant had no prospect of showing that this requirement put people of her age at a particular disadvantage compared with those in their late 20s and 30s, or that it put her personally at that disadvantage. The tribunal therefore struck out the age discrimination claims as having no reasonable prospect of success. It also refused the claimant's application for privacy and anonymisation of the judgment, relying on the principle of open justice.