At an employment tribunal heard at Exeter, a female executive - Ms Susan Coulson, aged 59 years - was awarded £64,000 after she was dismissed by a housing company. 

Ms Coulson made a claim for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination against RentPlus UK Ltd - a Plymouth based housing firm - after she was fired from her £100,000 a year job.  She stated that she was given the option of taking a job 250 miles away or taking a £35,000 pay cut, leaving her in a ‘perilous’ position because of her age.

Ms Coulson declined both offers and was dismissed in August 2018, after being employed by the company since 2015.  Previously, she had worked in social housing at a high level for 20 years.

When Ms Coulson joined RentPlus, Richard Connolly was the CEO and in April 2017, Steven Collins - who was a witness at the tribunal - was appointed as a consultant to secure strategic new business. Towards the end of 2017 Richard Connolly decided that for personal reasons he could no longer continue in his role as CEO and without advertising the vacancy, the board appointed Steven Collins to his position.  

Ms Coulson argued that she had been gradually ‘frozen out’ under the disguise of 'cost cutting' after the new chief executive had been appointed. The board consisted of all male members. She pointed out that she was well equipped to apply for the role of CEO - she is now CEO of a larger organisation in this field - but was denied the opportunity to do so, as the appointment was made by the board without anyone outside it knowing it was under consideration. The board say that the restructure was genuine, that her dismissal had not been to do with gender and that there was no post available at the same level.

In the judgment, the judges said that the company had argued against sex discrimination, claiming: ‘that all the board are male is simply a reflection of the fact that few women have the money and connection to attain such a position. That some may play golf or have yachts is not an indicator of sex discrimination’. They added that ‘while the tribunal is unanimous as to the findings of fact, and the assessment of them in relation to unfair dismissal, this was no more than a very bad case of unfair dismissal.  Rentplus’ case is one that would have applied to any person in Ms Coulson’s position such that there is no connection with gender.’

Employment Judge Paul Housego said:

“She is a resilient individual not afraid of, and relishing, hard work, but the ­tribunal fully accept her evidence that this was highly demoralising and depressing.

She was left at an age where she feared that she might never be able to get a similar role, and (rightfully in the tribunal’s view) considered that she was in an even more perilous ­situation than a comparable man because ageism is worse for women than men, and she would have the risk of double prejudice as a woman.

It is not necessary for her to prove that her fears are a correct assessment - the tribunal is fully satisfied that they were real, and genuine fears caused by the company’s actions, which had a great effect on Ms Coulson.”

The employment tribunal ruled that Ms Coulson was unfairly dismissed as well as sexually discriminated against.