At the Age Diversity Forum, we have previously emphasised the benefits of legislation compliance when considering a more age-diverse workforce. Age is a legally protected characteristic under the 2010 Equality Act. Complying with the act would reduce reputational risk and the risk of high costs following any legal proceedings. We have covered cases before such as Superdry and Eli Lilly but we are now focusing on a very recent case: PetroTrace.

PetroTrace has recently had to pay more than £340,000 to an employee after losing an age discrimination case. Cyril Gregory, a scientist at the company, was 62 years old and had been dismissed in late 2021. During the tribunal, it was brought to attention that managers had discussed his age stating they wanted to hire “more active staff” and that he was “expensive”. These managers claimed they raised disciplinary issues, but Gregory had none on record. Furthermore, a conversation between a major shareholder and the managing director explained that they stated they would say they let Gregory go due to bad performance and high expense due to being unproductive.

“more employees are opening up about their experiences with ageism in the workplace”

The final judgement of the tribunal was that the claimant was unfairly dismissed and was dismissed due to age discrimination. PetroTrace was found to have subjected Gregory to victimisation and there was a breach of contract by not providing notice before the dismissal. Overall, Gregory was awarded compensation for unfair dismissal, age discrimination, victimisation and breach of contract. This meant he was awarded this compensation for the basic award for the dismissal, financial loss he suffered following, injury to feelings and uplift on the compensation for failure to comply with the ACAS code. This led to a final total of over £340,000.

One aspect we have not fully focused on during our previous discussions on compliance is the impact it has on those affected. While there are huge consequences to a business, there are also impacts on the employee. A loss of confidence is one as the employee may feel that they are not suitable for their role and may fall into the trap of believing their employers who have disowned them. There are also links to worsening physical and mental health which can lead to increased isolation. Another is potentially struggling to find work. After all, being dismissed does not inspire confidence. Gregory said he found trouble getting roles as a geophysicist and now works 12 hours a week in Duty-Free at Gatwick Airport – an inefficient use of his skill set. This also then leads to greater financial costs as those who have been dismissed unfairly due to their age, may not be able to keep themselves living comfortably – let alone pay for the legal costs of trying to get justice.

To conclude, this case highlights the importance of compliance. More and more employees are opening up about their experiences with ageism in the workplace and we are seeing a rise in the cases in recent years. With financial and reputational consequences, businesses should understand that it is much more productive to their development to promote age diversity – especially when considering the benefits that we have previously mentioned. There is no excuse to discriminate against age. Will the trend of age discrimination cases continue to rise? Or will businesses begin to act on their lack of age diversity?

Sonya Knight | ADF Comms Team

Read our previous editorial here

Read our other editorials on legislation here and here

To respond and/or for more information, please contact the ADF Comms Team at: [email protected]