Claimant v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim 2 relating to comparison with staff on SEO Grades in the same age group as claimant was withdrawn by the claimant at the hearing and dismissed under Rule 51.
Claim 1 relating to the difference in pay rises between 'Employee Deal' terms (5.5%) and 'legacy terms' (4.5%) was struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. The tribunal found the difference in treatment was due to different contractual terms, not age. All staff on legacy terms could opt to move to Employee Deal terms regardless of age, and the claimant chose not to do so.
Facts
The claimant, aged 40-65, was employed on 'legacy terms' (pre-2016 contractual terms) and received a 4.5% pay rise. He brought age discrimination claims comparing himself to younger staff on 'Employee Deal' terms (post-2016) who received 5.5% pay rises. All staff on legacy terms, regardless of age, could opt to move to Employee Deal terms but the claimant chose not to do so. The respondent applied to strike out the claim.
Decision
The tribunal struck out the age discrimination claim as having no reasonable prospects of success. The difference in pay rises was due to different contractual terms, not age. Since all employees regardless of age could move to Employee Deal terms and the claimant chose not to, the treatment was not because of age. One claim was also withdrawn by the claimant.
Practical note
A difference in treatment based on contractual terms that employees can freely choose, regardless of their protected characteristic, will not establish direct discrimination even if there is a correlation between the characteristic and the terms.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001793/2024
- Decision date
- 8 July 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- central government
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No