This case involved an allegation of indirect age discrimination. On appeal it was contended that the Tribunal had fallen into error by concluding that the Claimant was an ‘undeserving Claimant’ within the meaning of paragraph 32 of the Supreme Court decision in Essop v Home Office; Naeem v SoS for Justice [2017] IRLR 558 and that it erred in its analysis of the Respondent’s case on justification.
The appeal was allowed. Before the Tribunal it had not been recognised that the group and individual disadvantage asserted were different. This led to an error in the subsequent analysis.
The group disadvantage was asserted to be a reduced likelihood of membership of a Talent Pool used by the Respondent for recruiting to senior roles for the age group 55-70. The Claimant was in that age group and was also not in the talent pool. The Tribunal erred in its approach to the question of individual disadvantage and had erred in concluding that the Claimant had not suffered an individual disadvantage. That in turn led to error in its approach to justification.
Citations:
[2020] UKEAT 0213 – 19 – 0610
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.655541