• Rose and Rose Solicitors

Bank director - age discrimination ruling



Redundancy is a potentially fair reason for dismissal, but it may be found to be unfair – for example if a particular employee is unfairly selected for redundancy. Conversely, where voluntary redundancy is on offer, employers must take care not to exclude someone for reasons that are discriminatory.


In Donkor v The Royal Bank of Scotland, a senior bank employee claimed that he was not offered voluntary redundancy purely because of his age and that this constituted direct age discrimination.


Mr Donkor, who was aged over 50, was one of four regional directors of the bank whose jobs were initially identified as at risk of redundancy following a restructuring exercise. Two of them, who
were aged under 50, were given the option to take voluntary redundancy but he was granted no such opportunity. An Employment Tribunal (ET) nevertheless rejected his age discrimination claim on the basis that his position was not fairly comparable with that of his two younger colleagues.


The ET noted that, because of his age, voluntary redundancy would also result in an entitlement to a non-discounted pension and that the total cost of dispensing with his services would have exceeded £500,000. Such a severance package gave rise to particular legal risks and required authorisation by the bank's senior management. Those difficulties would not have arisen in relation to his younger colleagues and the cost of making them redundant would have been substantially lower.


In upholding Mr Donkor's challenge to the ET's decision, however, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that the chance to take voluntary redundancy was a benefit that had been denied to him simply because of his age. The ET had erred in its approach to the question of comparison. Its starting point had been to deny the appropriateness of the comparison between Mr Donkor and his colleagues 
because
of the 
material 
difference
 arising from 
the fact 
that 
voluntary
 redundancy
 would
 enable him 
to obtain
 early 
retirement 
benefits, which it would not for his comparators. The difference between him and his colleagues as identified by the ET was in reality simply that of age. That was precisely his complaint and could not be relied upon as a material difference for the purpose of comparison.


The EAT found on the evidence that Mr Donkor had been less favourably treated and that he had, on the face of it, established that he was a victim of age discrimination.


The case was sent back to the same ET for consideration as to whether his treatment was nevertheless justified in the particular circumstances of the case.


Contact us if you would like advice on any of the issues raised in this newsletter or on any employment law matter.


Please note we are unable to offer legal aid.

0 views

Our useful documents, click to view

If you have difficulty with mobility we can arrange to see you outside the office where there is ease of access or even at your home 

© Rose & Rose. All rights reserved. Registered Office: The Riverside Centre, 40 High Street, Kingston upon Thames, KT1 1HL 

London, Tower Hill: 1 St Katharine's Way, St Katharine's & Wapping, London E1W 1UN

Rose & Rose LLP t/a Rose & Rose (Company no. OC363353)

VAT Number: GB 928 5154 08

Authorised and Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA)

SRA ID: 559162