Case 4103074/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Member Paton Tribunal Member McCaig Ms L Ricketts v Represented by Mr C Mac - Lay Representative McCurrach UK Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 4103074/2022
- Decision date
- 29 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sangster Tribunal
- Venue
- Glasgow
- Panel members
- Tribunal Member Paton, Tribunal Member McCaig
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Member Paton Tribunal Member McCaig Ms L Ricketts
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms L Ricketts, worked for McCurrach UK Ltd from 11 March 2020 as a Territory Manager covering Devon and Cornwall. She was 53 when she started. She brought complaints of direct age and sex discrimination, indirect age and sex discrimination, and harassment related to age and sex arising during her employment, which ended with dismissal on 6 January 2022 after disciplinary and appeal hearings.
On the direct discrimination allegations, the tribunal rejected the claimant's account of the 29 July 2021 meeting, finding that CB did not publicly chastise her or use the words alleged, but privately told her to plan for bad traffic and be on time. It did not accept the allegations about the 11 August 2021 email, the 12 August 2021 supermarket incident and comments, or the 19 August 2021 expenses remark. It also found that a change in CB's attitude after the claimant started a relationship was explained by performance management rather than age or sex.
On indirect discrimination, the tribunal found there was no PCP requiring employees to work more than their contracted hours to achieve business targets, and no PCP preventing early finishes on Fridays. It did find that Territory Managers were required to work core hours of 10am to 4pm and travel long distances between supermarkets, but the claimant did not prove that this put older workers at a particular disadvantage. The tribunal relied in part on evidence that two previous holders of the same territory were older than the claimant and had managed the role without difficulty.
On harassment, the tribunal accepted that some matters occurred, including the delay in approving the claimant's annual leave request, pressure during the 11 November 2021 meeting, the discussion about needing to cover more stores in less time, the HR comments at the disciplinary hearing, the telematics concerns, and the later references to the smart working guide. However, it found either that the conduct was not established, was not related to age or sex, or did not meet the section 26 Equality Act 2010 threshold of unwanted conduct with the required effect. It also found that the tablet-delivery issue had been considered before dismissal and did not amount to harassment.
The tribunal therefore dismissed all complaints. It made no award of compensation.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The direct and indirect age discrimination complaints were dismissed. The tribunal found the 29 July 2021 and 11 August 2021 incidents were either not established or would have been said to any employee, and it held that the only PCP it found - core hours of 10am to 4pm together with long travel between supermarkets - did not establish a particular disadvantage to older workers. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | The direct and indirect sex discrimination complaints were dismissed. The tribunal found the alleged remarks and conduct were either not established or were not because of sex, and it held that the working arrangements relied on by the claimant did not establish sex-related disadvantage. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | The harassment allegations related to age and sex were dismissed. Where conduct was established, the tribunal found no evidence that age or sex played any part, and it held that the conduct did not meet the section 26 Equality Act 2010 threshold for unwanted conduct with the required purpose or effect. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.19 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Igen v Wong burden of proof
- Madarassy v Nomura burden of proof
- Nelson v Carillion Services Limited group disadvantage
- Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal threshold
- Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board v Hughes threshold
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.