Case 4101376/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Member D Calderwood Tribunal Member R Dearle Ms H Cassidy v Represented by: Mrs D Cassidy Mother The Daimler Foundation Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 4101376/2020
- Decision date
- 25 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
- Panel members
- D Calderwood, R Dearle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member D Calderwood Tribunal Member R Dearle Ms H Cassidy
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Hazel Cassidy, born on 10 November 2005, worked for The Daimler Foundation Ltd as a part-time waitress at its equestrian centre. The tribunal accepted her evidence and that of Ms Chelsey Alexander, and rejected Mr Malcolm Easy's evidence where it conflicted with theirs. It found that when her employment ended she was told, in substance, that she was too young for the role and that the accountant had said so for health and safety reasons.
On that basis, the tribunal held that age was at least a more than trivial factor in the decision to end her employment and that the burden shifted under section 136 Equality Act 2010. The respondent did not discharge that burden. The tribunal also rejected objective justification, because the respondent had not led evidence to support it. The direct discrimination claim under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 therefore succeeded.
The harassment claim under section 26 failed. The tribunal accepted that a warning from Mr Stuart McEwen about the owner putting an arm round her shoulder had made the claimant uncomfortable, but held that this was at most minor upset and did not meet the statutory threshold. The sole remedy was injury to feelings; applying the lower Vento band as updated, the tribunal awarded £2,500 plus £300 interest, making a total award of £2,800.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The tribunal found that age was at least a more than trivial factor in the decision to end the claimant's employment, because she was told she was 'too young' for the role and that this was said to be for health and safety reasons. The judgment's facts section refers to the dismissal call on 20 December 2019, while the remedy section calculates interest from 22 December 2019. | Upheld | Age | £2,800 |
| Harassment | The claim was pleaded as harassment because of age or sex. It arose from a warning to the claimant about the owner putting an arm round her shoulder; the tribunal accepted she felt uncomfortable but held the incident amounted to no more than minor upset and did not meet the section 26 threshold. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,800
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- Pemberton v Inwood
- Vento bands
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.