Redundancy hasn’t been in the general news recently, although Eversheds, the national law firm did hit the headlines when it was successfully sued by a male employee it selected and made redundant. He alleged that he had been the victim of sex discrimination because he was not scored as well as a female colleague, in the same selection pool, who was on maternity leave at the time. She was scored more favourably because the firm feared doing anything else would have exposed them to a claim for sex discrimination from her. Eversheds are appealing the decision.
Most people know that employers these days shouldn’t in job interviews ask women of child-bearing age when they intend to start a family. Nor should they now ask potential employees how old they are. The reason in both cases is that (a) it is usually going to be none of the employer’s business but, also, (b) it runs the risk of the applicant/employee later stating that the failure to appoint them was on discriminatory grounds. A report on the Personnel Today website from a few days ago questioned the wisdom of Cherwell District Council in asking employees to state whether they intended to retire in the next two or three years. The Council is currently asking staff to work fewer hours or to work without pay to avoid the need for redundancies. However, its request to staff to detail their plans and aspirations over the next two to three years could lead to them facing an age discrimination claim, suggests the article, if an employee could show that they were selected for redundancy because of their stated plan to seek retirement. The same risk would apply if a woman stated she intended to start a family and was subsequently place “at risk”.
Comments (0) 
