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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #redundancy-selection
- #predetermined-outcome
- #age-discrimination
- #furlough
- #scoring-manipulation
Key facts
- Mr Crowley was selected for redundancy from a pool of three Application Engineers.
- The scoring process was manipulated to ensure Mr Crowley was the lowest ranked.
- Mr Zeoli believed Mr Crowley might retire soon, which influenced the decision.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was predetermined and unfair.
- Age was a material factor in the decision to dismiss Mr Crowley.
Timeline
-
Mr Crowley started employment
Mr Crowley began working for the Respondent as an Account Manager, later Applications Engineer.
-
Mr Crowley placed on furlough
Mr Zeoli placed Mr Crowley on furlough, partly due to belief he might retire.
-
At risk of redundancy letter
Mr Crowley was informed his role was at risk of redundancy.
-
Initial scoring exercise
Mr Zeoli scored the three Application Engineers; Mr Crowley scored lowest.
-
Dismissal for redundancy
Mr Crowley was dismissed by letter, despite his objections to the scoring.
-
Appeal lodged
Mr Crowley appealed, alleging fixed scoring and age discrimination.
-
Appeal rejected
The appeal was not upheld.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's redundancy was a genuine redundancy situation and whether the selection process was fair, and whether age discrimination played a part in the decision to dismiss him.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant's dismissal for redundancy was unfair because the scoring process was manipulated to ensure he was selected. Age was a material factor, as a director believed the claimant might retire soon, influencing the decision.
Compensation:
- Total award: £65,747.54
- No breakdown provided in the structured facts.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are selected for redundancy and suspect the scoring is fixed, gather evidence and challenge it immediately – tribunals will look closely at the process.
- Employers must ensure redundancy scoring criteria are objective and applied consistently; any manipulation will render the dismissal unfair.
- Age-related assumptions, such as believing an older employee might retire soon, can amount to direct age discrimination.
- Long-serving employees (7+ years) are entitled to a fair redundancy process, including proper consultation and objective selection criteria.
When redundancy becomes a cover for discrimination
This case shows how a seemingly straightforward redundancy process can unravel when the selection criteria are manipulated and age becomes a factor. The claimant, an applications engineer with seven years' service, was placed on furlough during the pandemic and later selected for redundancy from a pool of three. The tribunal found that the scoring was fixed to ensure he was the lowest ranked, and that a director's belief that he might retire soon influenced the decision.
What went wrong
The employer, Sterling Thermal Technology Ltd, could have avoided this outcome by following a fair and transparent redundancy process. Instead, the scoring was predetermined, and the claimant was not given a genuine opportunity to challenge his selection. The tribunal noted that age was a material factor, which turned an unfair dismissal into a case of direct age discrimination. The company's failure to consult properly and apply objective criteria cost them over £65,000.
Why this matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that redundancy selection must be based on objective criteria, not assumptions about age or retirement intentions. Tribunals will scrutinise the process closely, especially when the scoring appears manipulated. For employers, it highlights the importance of fair consultation and transparent scoring to avoid claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination.
Similar cases
Sales assistant with chronic kidney disease loses disability discrimination claim over furlough placement
A former nurse turned sales assistant who was placed on furlough during the pandemic due to shielding advice has lost her disability and age discrimination claims against Irvings Butchers Limited.
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.
Former owner's constructive dismissal claim dismissed as too late
A tribunal dismissed a former employee's claims of constructive unfair dismissal and age discrimination because they were brought too late, despite his ill health and furlough.
Redundancy selection after cancer: employer concealed vacancy and lost discrimination claim
A process supervisor with six years' service was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against when Goodfish Limited selected him for redundancy while hiding a vacant maintenance manager role. The tribunal awarded £62,438.