Think Twice Before Being Nice? – Employment Litigation/ Tribunals

The Employment Tribunal’s decision in Mr F Edreira v
Severn Waste Services Limited has sparked public attention. Mr
Edreira, a 66-year-old man, alleged that he had faced age
discrimination when his manager offered him a chair. The Tribunal
found that offering a chair to an older employee could amount to
age discrimination.

Background

Felipe Edreira was employed by Severn Waste Services Limited as
an Operative at its waste processing site from 4 December 2006
until his dismissal on 23 October 2023. During a shift in June
2022, the Claimant’s manager, Mr Idris Buraimoh, offered him a
chair to sit on while working. Mr Edreira declined the offer,
noting afterwards that he was the only employee aged over 66 on the
shift and the only employee to be offered a chair.

Filipe Edreira brought a claim against his employer for alleged
age discrimination and harassment. He believed that the conduct he
experienced was aimed at pushing him out of the company upon
reaching age 66. He argued that the offer of a chair was
unsolicited and used as an attempt to force him to retire. The
company contended that it was commonplace to offer support to
employees to ensure they were as comfortable as possible while at
work, especially considering shifts are 10 hours long.

Although Mr Edreira was the only person over 66 on his shift,
there were four other employees over 60, and approximately half of
the company’s workforce was over 50. He also cited other
instances of behaviour he deemed discriminatory based on age. These
included being moved from his usual station to cabins handling
heavier materials, while younger employees were not. Additionally,
a colleague informed his wife, an employee of the company, that the
Operations Director had expressed a preference against employing
workers over the age of 66.

The Tribunal heard from the company that before Mr Edreira’s
dismissal, he had been on sick leave for 15 months, during which a
comprehensive welfare process was undertaken, including referrals
to occupational health.

Age is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.
This means that discriminating against an individual based on their
age is unlawful and employers cannot make derogatory age-related
remarks or treat individuals unfavourably due to their age.

Decision

The Employment Tribunal dismissed Mr Edreira’s age
discrimination and harassment claim. Whilst the Tribunal accepted
that the conduct was unwanted, the claims failed because they were
not age-related. The Tribunal found nothing unpleasant, rude or
age-related about how the chair was offered. At the time, the
Claimant could not carry out heavy lifting tasks following an
operation. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the offer of a
chair, although unusual, stemmed from genuine concern for the
employee’s health rather than his age.

Although his claim was dismissed, the Tribunal did note that
offering a chair could be seen as unusual and relocating Mr Edreira
to another area showed a lack of awareness. The Tribunal agreed
that the move was “unwanted conduct” that could have been
discriminatory but ultimately found that these actions did not
amount to age discrimination.

Learning Points

This case has sparked discussion surrounding age discrimination
within the workplace. Although Mr Edreira’s claim was not
upheld, the data shows that age discrimination is prevalent in the
UK. The Tribunal’s decision suggests that offering a chair to
an older employee but not to younger counterparts may constitute
less favourable treatment, contrary to the Equality Act 2010. As a
result, employers who offer a chair to an older worker and not
their younger peers could be breaching equality laws if the older
worker feels they have been treated less favourably.

The decision highlights the importance of respecting individual
preferences and avoiding assumptions, as such actions can
inadvertently perpetuate the very biases we seek to prevent. The
decision highlights the risk of singling a person out based on age
and treating them differently, leading to perceptions of unfair
treatment and potential legal ramifications.

The Tribunal will employ a degree of reasonableness in these
sorts of cases, which is why Mr Edreira’s claim was dismissed.
It serves as a clear signal to employers that:

• Addressing unconscious bias is imperative to prevent
  discrimination and foster inclusivity in the workplace.




• Meaningful discussions about discrimination, considering the
  nuances of each situation, are essential for employers to
  understand their responsibilities effectively.




• Implementing anti-discrimination policies and training for
  colleagues can help employers eradicate age discrimination in the
  workplace.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.