Electrician loses age discrimination claim after contract not renewed
An electrician with 5 years' service failed to prove direct age discrimination when his contract was not renewed after he mentioned retirement. The tribunal found no less favourable treatment on grounds of age.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #age-discrimination
- #employee-status
- #contract-worker
- #implied-contract
- #agency-arrangement
Key facts
- The claimant worked as an electrician for the respondent for over 5 years.
- The claimant was initially paid through an agency and later through his own limited company.
- The claimant was told to set up a limited company to continue being paid.
- The claimant did not sign any consultancy agreement with the agency or his limited company.
- The claimant was not paid when he shielded his wife during the pandemic.
- The respondent decided not to renew the claimant's contract after he said he would retire.
Timeline
-
Started work
Claimant started working for the respondent as an electrician.
-
Set up limited company
Claimant set up Whitton Electrical Services Limited after being told he needed to do so to continue being paid.
-
Shielding due to pandemic
Claimant told respondent he would stay home to shield his wife with serious health issues.
-
Contract expired
Claimant's contract expired and was not renewed.
-
Preliminary hearing
Preliminary hearing before EJ Pritchard to decide employee status and strike out applications.
-
Preliminary hearing on status
Preliminary hearing before EJ Burge; claimant found to be an employee under Equality Act 2010.
-
Final merits hearing day 1
First day of final hearing before EJ Krepski and members.
-
Final merits hearing day 2 and judgment
Second day of final hearing; claim of direct age discrimination dismissed.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the electrician was an employee under the Equality Act 2010 (which he was found to be at a preliminary hearing) and whether the non-renewal of his contract amounted to direct age discrimination.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim of direct age discrimination.
The key reason was that the electrician failed to prove that a hypothetical younger worker would have been treated more favourably. The respondent's decision not to renew the contract was based on the fact that the contract had expired, not on his age or his mention of retirement.
No compensation was awarded as the claim failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- To succeed in a direct discrimination claim, you must show that a person without your protected characteristic would have been treated differently in the same circumstances.
- Mentioning retirement does not automatically prove age discrimination if the employer has a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision.
- The expiry of a fixed-term contract can be a valid reason for non-renewal, provided it is not a pretext for discrimination.
- Being found to be an employee under the Equality Act is a crucial first step, but does not guarantee success on the merits of the discrimination claim.
This case shows the difficulty of proving direct age discrimination when an employer has a seemingly neutral reason for its decision. The electrician had worked for UK Power Networks for over five years, initially through an agency and later through his own limited company. When his contract expired shortly after he told the respondent he would be shielding his wife during the pandemic and mentioned retirement, he believed the non-renewal was because of his age.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal accepted that the electrician was an employee under the Equality Act 2010, which gave him the right to bring a discrimination claim. However, on the merits, the claim failed. The tribunal found that the respondent's decision not to renew the contract was based on the simple fact that the contract had come to an end. There was no evidence that a younger worker in the same position would have been treated differently, which is the key test for direct discrimination.
What the respondent did right
The respondent was able to point to the fixed-term nature of the contract and the lack of any discriminatory motive. The electrician had not provided any comparator evidence or shown that his age was a factor in the decision. The tribunal noted that the respondent had legitimate business reasons for not renewing, and the mention of retirement did not, on its own, prove discrimination.
Why this matters
For employees bringing age discrimination claims, this case is a reminder that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show less favourable treatment because of age. Even if an employer's decision seems harsh or poorly timed, it may not be discriminatory if there is a genuine non-discriminatory reason. The case also highlights the importance of gathering evidence of how other employees in similar situations were treated.
Similar cases
Taxi driver found to be employee and worker, awarded £5,181 for unlawful deductions
A private hire taxi driver was found to be an employee of the vehicle owner and a worker of the dispatch company. He was awarded £5,181.48 for unlawful deduction of wages, but his age discrimination claim was dismissed.
Dog walker with set hours found to be employee: unfair dismissal and age discrimination win
A dog walker who worked set hours for five years was found to be an employee, not a self-employed contractor, and awarded over £11,700 for unfair dismissal and age discrimination.
Whistleblowing tractor operative awarded £94,838 after being sent home and dismissed
A tractor operative who reported unsafe equipment to the Environment Agency and his employer was subjected to detriment and dismissed. The tribunal awarded him £94,838.50 for injury to feelings, unpaid wages, and the employer's failure to provide written particulars.
Sole director and shareholder fails to prove employee status for National Insurance Fund claim
A design co-ordinator who was the sole director and shareholder of her own company could not claim redundancy or other payments from the National Insurance Fund because she was not an employee. The tribunal dismissed her claims.