Bosses who offer an older worker a chair to sit on could be guilty of age discrimination, a judge has said.
In the increasingly labyrinthine field of workplace protocols, even giving an older employee the opportunity to sit while younger staff remain standing could be viewed legally as “less favourable treatment”, a tribunal has said.
Employers who offer a chair to older workers but not to younger colleagues could be in breach of equality legislation as older employees could “legitimately conclude” they were being treated “disadvantageously”.
The tribunal in Birmingham was hearing a case brought by a 66-year-old worker at a recycling plant, who claimed that he had been discriminated against after a colleague asked if he wanted to sit down during his shift.
Filipe Edreira said he believed that bosses were trying to force him to leave because of his age and that he was singled out as no one else at the site used a chair.
Advertisement
The tribunal found that he was given the chance to sit down because colleagues were concerned about his health but agreed that the offer was “unwanted conduct” that could have been discriminatory.
David Faulkner, the employment judge, said in Edreira’s case the offer was “unusual” and therefore he “could legitimately conclude that he was being treated differently to others and therefore disadvantageously”.
Edreira had worked at a site in Worcester for Severn Waste Services since 2006 until he was sacked last October.
The company employed about 80 staff. Edreira was the only one who was older than 66, although four were over 60 and about half were over 50.
Edreira had said he wanted to work for another 18 months, but he acknowledged that he was not able to do heavy lifting because of health conditions.
Advertisement
Edreira told the tribunal that in 2022 he had been forced to move from the cabin where for ten years he had dealt with paper recycling to an area that dealt with plastic.
At about the same time, his manager, Idris Buraimoh, was said to have asked Edreira if he wanted a chair, even though he had not asked to sit.
In its report, the tribunal noted that Buraimoh did not give a reason for the offer, “though there was nothing unpleasant or rude about the way in which he asked the question”.
The hearing was told that chairs were routinely offered to staff who might find them beneficial because of health problems or pregnancy. But Edreira, who is now 68, insisted that employees were not allowed to sit during their shifts and that he did not see anyone using a chair.
Bosses ultimately wrongly accused Edreira of taking an unauthorised absence from work. He then went on sick leave before being dismissed.
Advertisement
He sued for age discrimination and harassment, claiming that the company had tried to force him out after he reached 66.
The tribunal rejected his case and although the judge acknowledged that the offer of the chair was unusual “it was not sufficient of itself to indicate that him being over age 66 was in Buraimoh’s mind, consciously or otherwise”.
