An ET case dealing with performance and management.
Viewing entries in
Employment Tribunal
An ET holds that the duty to consider procedure in the Age Regulations requires an employer to genuinely consider an employee's request to work beyond retirement.
The ET rules that a retirement age of 48 for match officials is direct age discrimination.
This case deals with using "age" as a selection criteria in recruitment. The decision itself is well worth a read and contains useful lessons for any employer.
This ET decision deals with the issue of "windfall" payments to employees.
A 42 year old banker was discriminated on the grounds of his age after his employer fired him and sought to replace him with someone with a "younger, entrepreneurial" style.
A former Chief Executive of an NHS Trust was not discriminated against.
ET finds that comments made to a 52 year old Sainbury’s manager that implied she was ‘past it’ was direct age discrimination and awards compensation of £124,182.
A Scottish ET has considered the level of compensation to be awarded when an employer does not give notice of intended retirement to an employee within the required timescales.
This case was originally heard by an ET. An appeal against the ET's decision was heard by the EAT in July 2008.
Upper age limit of 35 for recruitment of air traffic controllers held unlawful.
An age discrimination claim against BP was unsuccessful; Tribunal rules that BP does not have an "ageist" culture.
Despite seeking a “dynamic young accountant”, SPG was found not to have discriminated on the grounds of age in their recruitment.
An ET rules that an enhanced redundancy scheme which gave greater credit for service over 40 was unlawful.
An employee of a UK subsidiary may only claim age discrimination under a share plan operated by an overseas parent if the overseas parent has aided and abetted an act of unlawful age discrimination by the UK subsidiary.
This is the first reported age discrimination case dealing with the thorny issue of flexible benefits schemes.
Sharma v Millbrook Beds Ltd involved an employer whose attempts to reduce the risk of a claim backfired.
The youngest claimant, in Wilkinson v Springwell Engineering Ltd, was 18 when she was dismissed, ostensibly on grounds of her capability.
This decision is a cautionary tale for employers who have not eliminated age-related language and questions from their recruitment exercises.
This case involved a claimant dismissed for being "too old".