Cases→3201294/2023

Claimant v Persimmon Homes Limited

1 April 2025Before Employment Judge IllingEast Londonin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalstruck out

Struck out on 02 January 2024 by Employment Judge Beyzade because claimant did not have the required 2 years' service for ordinary unfair dismissal

Direct Discrimination(age)failed

Tribunal found respondent dismissed claimant for conduct in relation to 13 customer complaints, not following management instructions, and failing to report actions on COINS system. There was cogent evidence treatment was in no sense whatsoever on grounds of age

Direct Discrimination(age)failed

Multiple allegations of less favourable treatment on grounds of age all failed. Tribunal found no prima facie case on most allegations; where burden shifted, respondent provided non-discriminatory explanation

Facts

Claimant aged 65 worked as Customer Care Coordinator for housebuilder from July 2021. In December 2022 respondent reorganised workload after losing 5-star HBF rating. Managing Director received customer complaint survey naming claimant for slow responses. Investigation found 13 customer complaints naming claimant for poor service and failure to follow new reporting procedures. Claimant dismissed summarily in March 2023 after less than 2 years' service. Claimant alleged dismissal and various other acts were age discrimination.

Decision

Tribunal dismissed all claims. Unfair dismissal struck out for lack of qualifying service. Age discrimination claims all failed - tribunal found respondent dismissed claimant for misconduct (failing to respond to customers and follow management instructions) not age. Where burden of proof shifted, respondent provided cogent non-discriminatory explanation. Claimant failed to establish prima facie case on most allegations of less favourable treatment.

Practical note

Even where two older workers leave close together, tribunals will find no age discrimination if employer demonstrates genuine performance concerns supported by contemporaneous evidence of customer complaints and failure to follow procedures.

Legal authorities cited

Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] ICR 337Hewage v Grampian Health Board [2012] UKSC 37Efobi v Royal Mail Group Ltd [2021] UKSC 33Madarassy v Nomura International Plc [2007] ICR 867Igen v Wong [2005] ICR 931Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Limited [2003] IRLR 332

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.136Equality Act 2010 s.123Equality Act 2010 s.39Equality Act 2010 s.23Equality Act 2010 s.13

Case details

Case number
3201294/2023
Decision date
1 April 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
3
Classification
contested

Respondent

Name
Persimmon Homes Limited
Sector
construction
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Customer Care Coordinator
Service
2 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No
Search for this judgment on GOV.UK →