Fact: Mr Shiret’s employment and history with Credit Suisse
Mr Shiret (55 years old) worked as a Research Analyst for Credit Suisse, within the Equity Research Department and specialised in analysing the value and cash flows of general retail businesses. He held the position of Managing Director.
In 2011, Mr Malic (35 years old) was headhunted and threatened to resign. However, Mr Malic decided to remain at Credit Suisse after being promoted to Director. Shortly afterwards, a redundancy procedure began. Both Mr Shiret and Mr Malic were placed at risk. Mr Shiret received lower scores than Mr Malic.
Mr Shiret was eventually dismissed by reason of redundancy. He brought claims of both direct and indirect discrimination in relation to his selection for redundancy and dismissal.
Decision in Mr Shiret’s age discrimination claim
The Tribunal found in favour of Mr Shiret.
In relation to the direct discrimination claim, the Tribunal found that Credit Suisse had intended to dismiss Mr Shiret when Mr Malic threatened to resign. The Tribunal found that Credit Suisse had used the redundancy exercise to achieve its aim and the low scores were given to Mr Shiret in order to secure his dismissal. The Tribunal held that this was less favourable treatment compared to the other employees that were scored. The Tribunal therefore upheld his claim of direct discrimination.
Having found direct discrimination in relation to Mr Shiret’s selection for redundancy and dismissal, the Tribunal rejected his indirect discrimination claim (the two are mutually exclusive from the same set of facts). However, the Tribunal did make some comments in relation to indirect discrimination. It suggested that the use of the criterion “potential” when selecting for redundancy could have favoured younger people.
The Tribunal also found that there was a 30% chance that Mr Shiret would have been dismissed, had a fair procedure been followed. It ordered compensation be reduced accordingly.
Mr A Shiret v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited, London East Employment Tribunal, case number 3202676/2011