A recent Employment Tribunal Judgment in England highlights the importance of fair redundancy practices and the protection of employees from age discrimination in the workplace. 

In this case a former Lidl employee was awarded £50,000 for unfair dismissal and age discrimination. This case serves as a reminder to all employers that redundancy processes must be conducted fairly and reasonably, without disadvantaging employees based on criteria that disproportionately affect older workers. 

Redundancy is one of five fair reasons in law that an employer may terminate an employee’s contract of employment. Not only must an employer follow a fair process, but it should also ensure that the selection or the selection criteria applied when terminating a contract of employment, are not related to any protected characteristic such as age or sex. In certain situations, this may be easier said than done. 

In this case, the claimant was successful in contending that his dismissal was both unfair and discriminatory based on his age, specifically indirect age discrimination. Indirect discrimination is distinct from direct discrimination in so far as it requires the claimant to contend that there is a provision, criteria or practice that placed him/her at a disadvantage by virtue of a protected characteristic, than others who did not have that characteristic. Indirect discrimination claims can be difficult for employers to identify; whilst on the face of it, the employer is treating everyone the same, the application of the criteria is what disadvantages the individual, and statistical evidence is important to substantiate any such disadvantage. 

Facts

After nearly 23 years of service with Lidl as a senior construction consultant, Mr Wayne Norman, aged 63 years old, was dismissed in March 2023 as part of a redundancy process. Despite his extensive experience overseeing store construction and refurbishment projects, his lack of a formal construction degree was cited as the reason for his redundancy. 

The selection process saw Mr Norman competing against two other consultants, both in their 30s, for a single remaining role. When one of the other consultants was selected for this role, Mr Norman was informed by his line manager that he had been “marked down” for not having a construction-related qualification or degree. The Employment Tribunal ruled that this criterion amounted to indirect age discrimination, as individuals in their 60s are less likely to have university degrees compared to younger employees. 
 

The Impact of the Dismissal

The Tribunal heard that Mr Norman’s dismissal had a devastating effect on his well-being and mental health. He described how being marked down for not having a degree made him feel inadequate and demeaned, highlighting his upbringing on a Welsh council estate where university education was simply not an option and readily accessible. His dismissal on the grounds of his redundancy led to him enduring psychological distress, family struggles, and even suicidal ideations.
Judge Maidment acknowledged all these factors, ruling that Lidl had failed to conduct a reasonable consultation process and that the redundancy scoring criteria had not been fairly and reasonably applied in Mr Norman’s case. As a result, Lidl was ordered to pay him £46,280.63 in compensation for unfair dismissal and a further £4,646.15 for injury of feelings because of indirect age discrimination. 


Key Takeaways

This case reinforces critical principles in employment law, particularly regarding redundancy selection criteria and ensuring same are non-discriminatory. Employers must ensure that their processes are objectively fair, avoiding indirect discrimination by using qualifications that may disproportionately or statistically disadvantage a certain section of the population more than others. While organisations and businesses can rely on and assess specific skills and competencies of their workforce in such a process, they must assess candidates in an objective manner, ideally relying on contemporaneous personnel records, and ensuring that any criteria applied to the pool of ‘at risk’ employees can in no way may be construed as less favourable treatment. 

Whilst the employer in this case may have felt they were acting fairly in the process and reaching the best decision for the business, the application of the university degree criteria, ought to have been risk assessed (even on an informal basis), to understand whether any employee, to include Mr Norman, could potentially be disadvantaged and/or discriminated against. 

Further, the ruling highlights the importance of fair consultation in redundancy decisions. Employers must engage meaningfully with affected employees, ensuring transparency and objectivity throughout the process. Failure to do so can render a dismissal unfair and leaving businesses vulnerable to significant legal consequences. Seeking expert advice at the earliest junction possible, should help any employer defend any such claim, to include the assessment of whether any selection criteria in a redundancy process may be discriminatory. 

Read the Employment Tribunal’s Liability Judgment heard in Sheffield, England, where the Remedies Judgement was heard subsequently.