No
convincing reason for using “younger” in the person specification
In Beck v
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce a 42-year-old who was supposedly made
redundant while the bank was seeking to recruit a replacement with a
“younger, entrepreneurial profile”, won his age discrimination claim
after a tribunal failed to give a reasonable explanation for the use of the
word “younger” in the recruitment brief.
Beck, aged 42, was Head of Marketing. He reported to a Mr Risler who was aged
35. Mr Beck
and Mr Risler did not get on. The Bank decided to
restructure and hire some senior marketers with different client relationships
to reflect a different target client base and product suite. Mr Beck was
informed he was at risk of redundancy and put on gardening leave. One of the
key attributes in the person specification for a new team leader position was
“younger, entrepreneurial profile.” While Mr Beck had indicated that
he would consider all alternative job options, he was nevertheless made
redundant at a time when the Bank
continued to recruit actively.
The
tribunal found that the redundancy was a sham. The plan was to replace Mr Beck
with another person who had the same key skills to perform the same type of
work. As to age discrimination, the use
of the word “younger” in the recruitment brief required an
explanation. The reason given – that younger simply meant less senior or
experienced – was unconvincing. The Bank had not discharged the burden of proof
by showing, on the balance of probability, that the
decision to dismiss was not influenced by his age. Therefore, the tribunal, as
it is entitled to do, concluded in the absence of an adequate explanation that
the employer had discriminated.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
