Age Discrimination: what are the odds?

legal updates

Replaced by a younger counterpart, without meritable reason, other than the desire for a younger person.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

A recently reported case regarding a high profile Racing Pundit caught our attention this week, as it makes some clear distinctions as to what a Tribunal will consider when judging an age discrimination case.

This case is a stark comparison to a case last year whereby a BBC Countyfile presenter successfully claimed age discrimination, on the grounds that they had been replaced by a younger counterpart, without meritable reason, other than the desire for a younger presenter, and the attention and rating such a change may have brought. However in the case of MCCrick V Channel 4 Television, the matter was a different story all together.

The Claimant had been providing racing punditry, especially on betting tips and odds, to Channel 4, since 1981. Between 1996 and 2012 a company HP Ltd were responsible for the employment of pundits, as such they employed the Claimant throughout this time period. However due to the number of other TV appearances the Claimant made, such as in celebrity Big Brother, and famously in Celebrity Wife Swap, his broadcasting work reduced between 2008 and 2010 from 80 days per year to just 40. During these appearances the Claimant demonstrated a number of less desirable character traits, such as being grossly outspoken and chauvinistic.

In 2012, Channel 4 secured a lucrative contract to host the main racing events instead of the BBC, including the main events in the racing calendar, such as the Grand National and Royal Ascot. This gave Channel 4 the opportunity to expand its viewership for not only the new coverage but for its existing coverage as well. There was a clear objective set out that those production companies tendering for the coverage would need to bring in new audience members whilst retaining their loyal fanatic racing fans at the same time. HP Ltd, who had previously dealt with the production (and who had previously employed the Claimant), tendered to continue their contract with Channel 4. However their bid was not successful and a new Company IMG Ltd took over the production contract.

IMG Ltd wanted to take their coverage to a new, more serious level, and as such undertook market research in order to gauge the public feeling on the Claimant, the current pundit on the show. The results showed a staggeringly negative feeling towards the Claimant, comparing very poorly to the other counterparts on the programme.

After numerous discussions it was ruled that the Claimants services would no longer be required and he was dismissed in October 2012. The Claimant subsequently made a claim of age discrimination against the Channel 4 and IMG Ltd on the grounds that he had only been dismissed because of his age (72).

The Tribunal here, had to distinguish if the reason for the Claimants dismissal was in fact on the grounds of his age, and, if this was the case, was this to achieve a legitimate aim, or policy objective. If this was the case then the Claimants dismissal would not be discriminatory. It was deemed that it was the Claimants personality and known public distaste which ultimately lead to his dismissal, and as Channel 4 wanted to widen their racing coverage this could not be achieved whilst their key pundit was so widely disliked by the general public. Therefore the Claimants dismissal was to achieve a legitimate aim, and was a proportionate route to achieving it.

WeRecruit Auto LtdPermanent Automotive Recruitment from an experienced and trustworthy recruitment partner.

We cover roles within all departments and sectors of the Automotive industry, and are here to listen to your specific needs and find the most suitable candidates to fit your business.

Dennis ChapmanIn remembrance of Dennis Chapman 1951 -2015Read More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Change management

The consequences of failing to manage workplace change effectively can increase employee resistance and deplete employee engagement.

Can a notice to terminate employment be withdrawn?

An employee’s refusal to agree to treat the notice as ineffective and to continue employment may have serious consequences.

The primary purpose of a contract of apprenticeship is training

If you take on an apprentice it is vital you have an apprenticeship agreement in place which is a contract of service.

Pandemic impact on annual leave entitlement

The change in March 2020 allowed for four weeks of annual leave to be carried over. So, as a reminder, any carried over leave must be used in 2022!

Right to work – adjusted checks extended to 30 September 2022

Job applicants and existing employees can send scanned documents or a photo of documents for checks using email or a mobile app, rather than sending originals.

Changes to pre-employment checks on the right to work in the UK

The current laws regarding pre-employment checks on foreign recruits is due to change from 6 April 2022.

End of COVID-19 restrictions – Employment implications

Until 24 March 2022, Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) will continue to be available to employees who self-isolate.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

Phone
01480 455500
Address

Vinpenta House
High Causeway
Whittlesey
Peterborough
PE7 1AE

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.