Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant's assignment was not extended because of reported concerns about his attitude and behaviour (specifically three incidents in June/July 2023 where he was described as unacceptable, negative, sarcastic and argumentative with duty team managers), not because of his age. The tribunal accepted the respondent's explanation that the claimant was considered difficult to manage. There was no evidential basis to conclude age was a factor — one person offered an extension was older than the claimant, the decision-makers denied age discrimination, and the claimant himself did not raise age as an issue until after early conciliation when he learned he needed a protected characteristic to proceed.
Facts
The claimant was a 43-year-old agency worker on assignment with the Open University as a student recruitment and support advisor from March to September 2023. In June and early July 2023, three duty team managers reported concerns about his attitude, describing him as negative, sarcastic, argumentative and not receptive to feedback. When temporary assignments were reviewed in September 2023, the claimant's was not extended while a younger comparator, Mr Manu (early 20s), was offered an extension despite the claimant having better productivity statistics. The claimant's assignment was terminated with immediate effect after he challenged the decision.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the age discrimination claim. It found the respondent's reason for not extending the assignment was the claimant's perceived bad attitude and behaviour based on the three reported incidents, not his age. The tribunal noted the lack of documentary evidence and poor management but concluded unfair treatment does not equal discrimination. The claimant failed to establish facts from which discrimination could be inferred, particularly as one person offered an extension was older than him and he only raised age discrimination after ACAS advised him he needed a protected characteristic.
Practical note
Poor management and lack of documentation, even when unfair to an employee, does not create an inference of discrimination without something more connecting the treatment to the protected characteristic — fairness and lawfulness are separate questions.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3313769/2023
- Decision date
- 16 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Open University
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Student recruitment and support advisor
- Service
- 6 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No