Age discrimination in redundancy selection: 21-year manager wins unfair dismissal claim
A Business Administration Manager with 21 years' service was unfairly dismissed after a flawed redundancy selection process that the tribunal found was tainted by age discrimination. The case highlights the risks of competency-based scoring lacking transparency.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy-selection
- #age-discrimination
- #competency-based-interview
- #pre-determined-outcome
- #new-world-comment
- #untidy-desk
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Business Administration Manager from 16 August 1999 until dismissal on 11 December 2020.
- The respondent restructured due to the COVID-19 pandemic, moving to online operations.
- The claimant applied for two roles: Administration Manager and Facilities & Safety Manager.
- He was scored lower than younger comparator Mr Baker for the Administration Manager role, with irregularities in the interview process.
- At the dismissal meeting, the claimant said he felt forced out due to age, and the manager did not rebut this.
- The tribunal found the selection process lacked transparency and was tainted by age discrimination.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as Business Administration Manager at Manchester branch.
-
Desk photograph taken
Manager Mr Entwistle photographed claimant's untidy desk, later used as a negative factor.
-
Final written warning
Claimant received final written warning for causing a £100 loss at auction.
-
Furloughed
Claimant placed on furlough due to COVID-19 pandemic.
-
Restructure announced
Respondent announced 'Project Oak' reorganisation, putting roles at risk.
-
Interview for Administration Manager
Claimant interviewed by Mr Entwistle; scored 16/24, while Mr Baker scored 18/24 and got the role.
-
Interview for Facilities & Safety Manager
Claimant interviewed by panel; scored 12/24 and was unsuccessful.
-
Dismissal meeting
Claimant told he was dismissed by reason of redundancy; he expressed feeling forced out due to age.
-
Employment terminated
Claimant's employment ended with 12 weeks' notice.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed and whether the respondent directly discriminated against him on grounds of age by not offering him alternative roles and dismissing him.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claimant's claim for unfair dismissal and found that the respondent directly discriminated against him on grounds of age.
Key reasons:
- The interview process for the Administration Manager role lacked transparency and the scoring was irregular.
- The claimant's manager had taken a photograph of his untidy desk months earlier, which was used as a negative factor.
- At the dismissal meeting, when the claimant said he felt forced out due to his age, the manager did not rebut this.
- The selection process was found to be pre-determined against the claimant.
Compensation will be determined at a separate remedy hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Length of service is a key factor in what counts as a reasonable response — long-serving employees usually get more process.
- Competency-based interviews for redundancy selection must be transparent and fairly scored to avoid findings of discrimination.
- Managers should avoid using subjective factors like desk tidiness in redundancy decisions.
- If an employee raises age discrimination during a dismissal meeting, the employer should take it seriously and investigate.
- A pre-determined outcome in a redundancy process is a red flag for tribunals.
This case shows how a redundancy process that appears objective on the surface can be undermined by a lack of transparency and discriminatory attitudes. The claimant, a Business Administration Manager with 21 years of service, was made redundant at age 67 after the company restructured due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He applied for two roles but was unsuccessful, with younger colleagues scoring higher in competency-based interviews.
What went wrong
The tribunal found that the interview process was not fair. The scoring for the Administration Manager role was irregular, and the claimant's manager had taken a photograph of his untidy desk months earlier, which was used as a negative factor. More tellingly, when the claimant said at the dismissal meeting that he felt forced out because of his age, the manager did not challenge this. The tribunal concluded that the outcome was pre-determined and that age discrimination played a part.
What the employer could have done differently
British Car Auctions could have avoided this outcome by ensuring the redundancy selection process was transparent and properly documented. They should have used objective criteria, given the claimant a fair opportunity to demonstrate his skills, and taken his age-related concerns seriously. A simple acknowledgment and investigation of his comment might have changed the outcome.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that redundancy processes must be genuinely fair, especially for long-serving employees. Tribunals will scrutinise the selection process closely, and any hint of discrimination can lead to a finding of unfair dismissal. Employers should ensure that competency-based scoring is consistent, that interviewers are trained, and that decisions are not influenced by age or other protected characteristics.
Similar cases
Regional Sales Manager unfairly dismissed after redundancy scoring was pre-determined
A tribunal found that Syspal Ltd unfairly dismissed a Regional Sales Manager with 2 years 7 months' service because the redundancy selection process was pre-determined and the scoring matrix flawed. He was awarded £32,735 in compensation.
Redundancy selection predetermined: a manager's unfair dismissal win
A Business Intelligence Manager with six years' service has won his unfair dismissal claim after his employer decided his fate before consulting him. The tribunal awarded over £117,000 in compensation and a protective award for failing to collectively consult.
Redundancy selection manipulated to target older employee: unfair dismissal and age discrimination
An applications engineer with 7 years' service was unfairly dismissed after his redundancy scoring was manipulated and age played a material role. The tribunal awarded £65,747.54.
Redundancy selection process upheld despite age discrimination allegations
A Senior Customer Service Officer with 12 years' service lost her unfair dismissal and age discrimination claims after the tribunal found the bank's redundancy selection process was reasonable.