• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
Call us now: 01243 836 840   [email protected]
Pure Employment Law
  • Who We Are
    • Nicola Brown
    • Peter Stevens
    • Elena Elsam
    • David Jones
    • Linda Nye
    • Brenda Cherry
  • For Employers
    • Advice on HR and People issues
    • Investigations, Hearings and Appeals
    • Restructuring and Redundancy
    • Defending Employment Tribunal Claims
    • Dismissal of Senior Executives
    • Contracts, Handbooks and Policies
    • Employment Law Training
  • For Employees
    • Settlement Agreements
    • Workplace Issues including Disciplinary and Grievance
    • Bringing an Employment Tribunal Claim
  • Employment Law Events
  • Legal Updates
  • Testimonials
  • Vacancies
  • Contact us
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Did “office banter” about an employee’s memory amount to age discrimination?

21 January 2021

In Crompton v Eden Private Staff Ltd the Employment Tribunal considered claims made by Mrs Crompton for direct discrimination and harassment because of her age after her manager made a series of jokey comments to her about having Alzheimer’s disease.

The facts

Mrs Crompton was 57 when she started working in March 2018 as an administrator for Eden Private Staff, which provides an introductory service for domestic staff.

In January 2019, Mrs Crompton switched to the role of search consultant and was subject to a probationary period in her new role.

In March 2019, two of Mrs Crompton’s managers met with her and discussed errors in welcome letters and CVs that she was sending out.

The same managers met with Mrs Crompton again on 18 April, where they raised a number of specific issues, including asking her to check letters and CVs more carefully before sending them out.

By 24 May, Mrs Crompton’s managers felt that it was taking her too long to learn the basics of the role and due to her continued poor performance, they took the decision to dismiss her. Mrs Crompton was notified and given a letter of dismissal the same day. The reason given was “inadequate performance during extended probation period”.

On 14 June, Mrs Crompton submitted a written grievance in which she contested that performance issues were the reason behind the decision to dismiss her. She stated: “I feel you have treated me unfairly in connection with age discrimination.” This was the first time that she had raised any complaint in relation to this.

Eden Private Staff asked an external HR consultant to investigate the grievance. The consultant had a telephone conversation with Mrs Crompton on 19 June, where it came to light that one of her managers had suggested on several occasions that she had Alzheimer’s disease. She said that comments were made to her such as “Is it Alzheimer’s again?” when she had forgotten something. She said this happened about once a week.

The next day, the consultant spoke with the manager concerned and asked if she had made any comments about Alzheimer’s. The manager accepted that she had, and explained it was “a bit of a laugh and joke” among colleagues.

The HR consultant submitted an investigation report and subsequently, a letter was sent to Mrs Crompton upholding one of her grievances relating to the extension of her probation period. All other grievances were dismissed. Mrs Crompton then submitted claims of direct discrimination and harassment because of her age to the Employment Tribunal.

The law

In relation to direct discrimination:

  • A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic (in this case, Mrs Crompton’s age), A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.

In relation to harassment:

  • A person (A) harasses another (B) if A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and the conduct has the purpose or effect of violating B’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

The Employment Tribunal’s decision

The Tribunal found that part of Mrs Crompton’s claim of direct discrimination had been made out. The Alzheimer’s remarks were detrimental and were less favourable treatment than the manager would have afforded to a materially younger search consultant.

Turning to the claim for harassment, the Tribunal found that the Alzheimer’s comments were age related and that Mrs Crompton did not want remarks of that sort to be made to her. The Tribunal doubted that the purpose was to violate Mrs Crompton’s dignity as the comments were considered by her manager to be “no more than office banter”. However, this did not “detract from the fact that it was reasonable for Mrs Crompton to find the remarks intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive.”

Significantly, in terms of the remedy, the Tribunal found that Mrs Crompton’s dismissal was based on her performance and her age was not a factor.

The Tribunal awarded Mrs Crompton £900 as compensation in respect of the direct discrimination and harassment together with interest of £100.41, noting that the evidence suggested “any injury having been slight” and that no complaints were lodged at the time the remarks about Alzheimer’s were made.

Conclusion

Although this case is not binding on other Tribunals, it serves as a reminder to employers that comments made by them to employees in jest could still be found to be discriminatory. Employers’ reputations can be damaged by such cases even where, as in this matter, the award of compensation is for the lowest amount that can be awarded by the Tribunal. Employers can also be held liable for discriminatory comments made by one employee to another, unless they can show that they took all reasonable steps to prevent the employee from making such remarks, for example by providing proper training as to what is acceptable language to use in the workplace.

If you are an employer dealing with a potential discrimination issue, then we can help. Please call us on 01243 836840 for a no obligation chat, or email us at [email protected].

Please note that this update is not intended to be exhaustive or be a substitute for legal advice. The application of the law in this area will often depend upon the specific facts and you are advised to seek specific advice on any given scenario.
Share this article
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail

Join our mailing list

* = required field
Mailing Lists


Recent Legal Updates

  • Uber loses in the Supreme Court – their drivers are ‘workers’ 24th February 2021
  • Did ‘stale’ equality training leave an employer without a defence to discrimination? 24th February 2021
  • Dismissal for social media comments – the importance of investigation 24th February 2021
  • Case Study – Investigation 3rd February 2021
  • What to expect during 2021 – employment law developments 21st January 2021
Link to: Contact Us

Any questions? Why not get in touch!

Our advice is always given in plain English without any waffle, and we focus on providing practical solutions to our clients’ problems.

Contact us

LEGAL INFORMATION

Pure Employment Law | 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH
[email protected] | Tel: 01243 836840

Pure Employment Law is the trading name of Pure Employment Law Limited, registered in England and Wales with company number 07134294 and whose registered office is 1 Little London, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PH. Pure Employment Law Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with registration number 533794. A list of the company’s directors is available for inspection at the registered office

DISCLAIMER

The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The information is provided by Pure Employment Law and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

Privacy Policy | Cookies Policy | Terms & Conditions | How to make a complaint | Sitemap

© Pure Employment Law 2021

Scroll to top

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies as defined in our cookie policy.

Accept Cookie Policy

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refuseing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Google Analytics Cookies

These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.

If you do not want that we track your visit to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Other cookies

The following cookies are also needed - You can choose if you want to allow them:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only