EAT AGE DISCRIMINATION
Senior employee aged 55 dismissed for redundancy following restructuring – Not considered for possible alternative roles – Younger colleagues, affected by same restructuring or other changes at or around the same time, offered alternative employment – Claim of age discrimination – Tribunal finds that reasons for her treatment due to factors other than her age – Contended that Tribunal made no reference to the burden of proof
Held, dismissing appeal:
(1) Although Tribunal should have referred to the burden of proof provisions in view of their centrality to the Appellant’s submissions before it, its positive findings meant that if the burden had been on the Respondent to show that the treatment of the Appellant was for reasons other than her age that burden had been discharged – Laing v Manchester City Council [2007] ICR 1519 followed
(2) Miscellaneous challenges to the Tribunal’s particular reasoning ill-founded
Underhill P J
[2011] UKEAT 0452 – 10 – 1609
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Laing v Manchester City Council EAT 28-Jul-2006
The Tribunal considered whether there was a need rigidly to approach the test for discrimination by application of the two stage test in Igen v Wong. Elias J said: ‘where the tribunal has effectively acted at least on the assumption that the burden . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.444528