Retirement discussions and PIP: dismissal for capability upheld despite age discrimination claim
A Fragrance Accounts Manager with 11 years' service was fairly dismissed for poor performance after a Performance Improvement Plan, and the tribunal rejected her claim that retirement discussions amounted to age discrimination.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #age-discrimination
- #retirement-discussions
- #performance-improvement-plan
- #capability-dismissal
- #succession-planning
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Fragrance Accounts Manager from 28 August 2008 until her dismissal on 26 March 2020.
- The claimant worked primarily from home, despite her contract requiring attendance at the Haywards Heath office when not visiting clients.
- The respondent had ongoing concerns about the claimant's performance, including poor communication, lack of office attendance, and failure to develop new business.
- The claimant was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) in July 2019, which she initially considered reasonable.
- The claimant did not meet the PIP objectives, and after a second PIP period, she was dismissed for capability/performance reasons.
- The tribunal found that the retirement discussions were legitimate workforce planning and did not amount to age discrimination.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started as Fragrance Accounts Manager at age 59.
-
First retirement discussion
Second Respondent asked about retirement plans; claimant indicated intention to retire at 65.
-
Successor hired
Reham Elwaki hired as successor, expecting claimant to retire.
-
Claimant stated no retirement plans
Claimant wrote to Second Respondent indicating she did not intend to retire.
-
Successor dismissed
Ms Elwaki dismissed as redundant because claimant was not retiring.
-
Appraisal and retirement discussion
Claimant indicated intention to retire in April 2019; appraisal set objectives.
-
Final retirement discussion
Claimant said she no longer wished to retire; no further retirement discussions occurred.
-
PIP commenced
Claimant placed on Performance Improvement Plan with objectives.
-
PIP review
Second Respondent concluded objectives not met; formal warning issued on 15 November 2019.
-
Second PIP and grievance
New PIP objectives set; claimant submitted grievance alleging age discrimination.
-
Second PIP review
Second Respondent found objectives not met; process paused pending grievance appeal.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed with payment in lieu of notice for capability/performance reasons.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for capability reasons and whether she was subjected to direct age discrimination through retirement discussions and performance management.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed both claims. It found that the retirement discussions were not discriminatory but part of normal succession planning, and that the employer had genuine concerns about the claimant's performance, which were not met despite two Performance Improvement Plan periods. The dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were not well-founded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers can discuss retirement plans as part of workforce planning without it being age discrimination, provided it is handled sensitively and not linked to negative treatment.
- A Performance Improvement Plan can be a fair process if objectives are reasonable and the employee is given adequate time and support to improve.
- Long-serving employees are entitled to a fair process, but if performance issues are genuine and documented, dismissal for capability can be upheld.
- Tribunals will look at the overall context: here, the retirement discussions stopped years before the PIP, which helped the employer's case.
What this case shows in practice
This case involved a Fragrance Accounts Manager who had worked for Mane Limited for 11 years, from age 59 to nearly 71. Over the years, her manager had several conversations with her about retirement plans, which she initially indicated would be at 65. The company even hired a successor, but when the claimant changed her mind and decided not to retire, the successor was made redundant. The retirement discussions ceased in 2018, well before the performance issues came to a head.
The claimant was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) in July 2019 after concerns about poor communication, lack of office attendance, and failure to develop new business. She initially considered the PIP reasonable but did not meet its objectives. A second PIP followed, and when she also failed to meet those objectives, she was dismissed for capability.
The tribunal rejected her claim that the retirement discussions and PIP were a cover for age discrimination. It found that the retirement discussions were legitimate workforce planning and that the performance concerns were genuine. The dismissal was fair because the employer had a genuine belief in her poor performance, based on reasonable grounds, and followed a fair process.
What the losing side could have done differently
From the claimant's perspective, the key lesson is that agreeing to a PIP and then failing to meet its objectives makes it difficult to argue unfair dismissal. If she had raised concerns about the PIP's fairness or requested adjustments earlier, the outcome might have been different. However, the tribunal found that the objectives were reasonable and that she had adequate support.
For employers, this case shows that retirement discussions can be handled without falling into discrimination, as long as they are not linked to any adverse treatment. The fact that the discussions stopped years before the PIP was crucial. Employers should also ensure that PIPs are properly documented and that employees are given a genuine opportunity to improve.
Why this result matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that a capability dismissal can be fair even when the employee is long-serving and has had retirement discussions in the past. Tribunals will look at the substance of the performance concerns, not just the timing. It also highlights that age discrimination claims based solely on retirement discussions are unlikely to succeed if those discussions were part of normal succession planning and did not lead to detrimental treatment.
Similar cases
Health and safety concerns not linked to dismissal: a capability case that succeeded
A Direct Adviser with 20 years' experience was dismissed for performance after raising workload concerns. The tribunal found no causal link between the health and safety complaints and the dismissal, ruling it was a fair capability dismissal.
Constructive dismissal after account reallocation and performance plan: a flawed process
A Services Account Manager with four years' service was constructively and unfairly dismissed after SAP placed her on a performance improvement plan and reallocated her largest accounts without proper process. The tribunal dismissed her discrimination claims.
Channel Account Director wins constructive dismissal and age discrimination claim after being put on PIP
A tribunal found that a Channel Account Director with two years' service was constructively unfairly dismissed and subjected to age discrimination after his manager planned to dismiss him before he accrued full employment rights.
Senior IT analyst dismissed without chance to respond: procedural unfairness in a performance improvement plan
A senior IT analyst with six years' service was unfairly dismissed after being handed a pre-prepared dismissal letter at a meeting described as a PIP review. The tribunal found the employer had already made up its mind.