Ms N Klaaste, litigation friend For the v Respondent — 2021

The tribunal found that the claimant, a long-serving Principal Care Manager, had been affected by a poorly managed 2017 restructure and by uncertainty about how her role fitted within the newly created Brokerage Team. It accepted that the transition was badly handled and that her role was not fully aligned with the team’s primary function. It also accepted that she was a respected and experienced employee. However, the tribunal concluded that these background difficulties did not establish age discrimination.

Across the 16 pleaded issues, the tribunal rejected most of the claimant’s factual allegations or found that she had not proved the primary facts needed to support an inference of discrimination. It found, among other things, that discussions about retirement arose because the claimant had repeatedly and clearly stated an intention to retire, not because of her age; that occasional omissions from meetings, charts, matrices or emails were explained by misunderstanding, workload, sickness absence cover, or administrative shortcomings; and that comments about staffing budgets and retirement timing were made in the context of team management and the claimant’s own stated plans.

On the remaining matters, including the October 2017 retirement announcement, exclusion from an organisational chart and training matrix, the February 2019 acting-up arrangements, and comments in June 2019, the tribunal held that a younger comparator in materially the same position would have been treated the same way. It found no adequate basis to infer that the respondent’s actions were because of age. It also held that the conduct complained of did not amount to harassment, and that comments such as workers no longer being required to retire at 65 or that the claimant had been around for "yonks" did not reasonably create a hostile or humiliating environment on the facts of this case.