In an employment tribunal held before Employment Judge Matthews, the Judge ruled that the employer was liable for humiliating, degrading and offensive remarks made to Mrs M Compton, who was claiming that she was harassed and directly discriminated against because of her age.
Mrs Compton worked for Eden Private Staff Ltd - who provide an introductory service for domestic staff - from March 2018 until her dismissal in June 2019. She was initially employed as an administrator but in August 2018 she applied for a job as a search consultant, which she commenced in January 2019. She was required to serve a further probationary period.
During the time that Mrs Compton worked there she stated that her manager made comments implying that her memory was defective because of her age and that she had Alzheimer’s which was linked to her poor performance. She was 57 years old at the time.
In March, two managers at Eden Private Staff met Mrs Compton as part of her probationary period and discussed errors that she made in welcome letters and CVs that she was sending out. The feedback, however, was positive as the two managers who conducted the interview - Ms Wallbridge and Ms Burridge - stated that they did not wish to discourage Mrs Compton.
A further probationary interview with Ms Wallbridge and Ms Burridge took place in April, during which Mrs Crompton was again asked to check letters and CVs more carefully before sending them out and check that the most up to date CVs were used. At this meeting, Mrs Crompton told Ms Wallbridge and Ms Burridge that Ms Burridge was angry and impatient towards her and despite enjoying her work, she felt tearful and nervous entering work each morning.
Towards the end of May, it was decided that Mrs Crompton was taking too long to learn the basics and had to be dismissed. She was given a letter of dismissal - citing inadequate performance during her extended probation - with her notice period ending on 21 June. She was signed off work on 3 June due to stress and did not return.
On 14 June, Mrs Crompton sent a grievance letter to Ms Wallbridge stating that she felt that her performance had not been the reason for her dismissal and that she felt she had been treated unfairly in connection with age discrimination.
Eden Private Staff Ltd engaged an external HR consultant to investigate the grievance. During this investigation, Mrs Crompton reported that Ms Burridge had suggested on several occasions that Mrs Crompton had Alzheimer’s disease and that she was also of the opinion that age may have been a factor in her dismissal.
Ms Burridge was spoken to by the HR consultant when she admitted that on one occasion she said to Mrs Crompton, “That will be the Alzheimer’s”. She then stated that she realised it may have caused offence and had apologised.
In August, the HR consultant submitted a report and subsequently Mrs Crompton was sent a letter upholding her grievance relating to the extension of her probation period but dismissing her other grievances.
At the tribunal, Judge Matthews found in favour of Mrs Crompton’s claim of direct discrimination finding that the Alzheimer’s remarks were an act of direct discrimination because they would not have been made to a younger search consultant. The Judge said that he thought that Ms Burridge saw her remarks as no more than office banter – but this did not detract from the fact that the comments violated Mrs Crompton’s dignity.
However, the tribunal ruled that the extension of Mrs Crompton’s probation period was not because of her age and that her dismissal was based on her performance with age not being a factor.
Eden Private Staff were ordered to pay Mrs Crompton £900 as compensation for the harassment and direct discrimination together with interest of £100.41. The evidence was said to suggest that any injury would have been slight and that no complaints were lodged at the time the remarks about Alzheimer’s were made. The Judge added that Mrs Crompton’s complaint had always been that her dismissal was unfair. Only when speaking to the HR consultant, did Mrs Crompton bring “the shift of emphasis towards age discrimination.”
Paul Holcroft - Managing Director of Croner - stated that this case showed how banter is never an excuse for discriminatory comments and that tribunals were unlikely to uphold such a defence for this behaviour.
He stated:
“It is therefore crucial that all employees, and managers, are aware of what constitutes acceptable conversation at work. If allegations are made against any member of staff, they should be fully investigated, and disciplinary action taken if necessary.”
