Claimant v Lymington & Pennington Town Council
Outcome
Individual claims
There was no evidence that an older person who similarly lacked a degree and 10 years' experience would have been treated more favourably than the claimant. The respondent even gave the claimant an opportunity to provide further information to meet the essential criteria. No comparator showed differential treatment based on age.
The tribunal found that the combination of requiring a degree and 10 years' senior management experience indirectly discriminated against those aged 31 or under when the claimant's application was rejected on 1 March 2024. The respondent could not justify why 10 years was reasonably necessary rather than a lesser period. However, discrimination ceased on 6 March 2024 when the respondent agreed to reconsider the claimant's application without applying those criteria. After that date, the claimant was not shortlisted due to weaknesses in his application (career break after 8 months, general supporting statement), not due to age-related criteria.
Facts
The claimant, aged 29, applied for the role of Town Clerk/CEO with Lymington & Pennington Town Council in February 2024. The job specification required a degree and at least 10 years' experience in senior management. The claimant had significant experience as a Town Clerk at multiple councils but no degree and under 10 years' experience. His application was initially rejected on 1 March 2024 for not meeting essential criteria, but after he complained, it was reconsidered by the staffing subcommittee on 11 March 2024. The subcommittee shortlisted three other candidates, finding the claimant's application weaker due to concerns about a short tenure at his last role (8 months before a 'career break') and a generic supporting statement.
Decision
The tribunal found indirect age discrimination when the claimant's application was rejected on 1 March 2024 because the combined requirement for a degree and 10 years' senior management experience was not justified—the respondent could not explain why 10 years was reasonably necessary. However, the discrimination ceased on 6 March 2024 when the respondent agreed to reconsider without applying those criteria. The claimant's subsequent non-selection was due to legitimate concerns about his application, not age. The tribunal awarded £2,500 injury to feelings plus £292 interest but no loss of earnings.
Practical note
When setting essential criteria for recruitment, employers must be able to objectively justify why specific thresholds (e.g. 10 years' experience) are reasonably necessary, not just desirable, or risk a finding of indirect age discrimination—but if discriminatory criteria are quickly reversed and the candidate is reconsidered fairly, losses will be limited to injury to feelings.
Award breakdown
Vento band: lower
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6001804/2024
- Decision date
- 7 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Town Clerk/CEO (applicant)
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No