Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

StressAge discriminationLatest NewsRetailFurlough

‘Low flight risk’ designer wins £100k age discrimination claim against Superdry

by Rob Moss 5 Jul 2022
by Rob Moss 5 Jul 2022 Superdry was ordered to pay a knitting designer £96,000 for age discrimination. Image: Mark Richardson / Alamy
Superdry was ordered to pay a knitting designer £96,000 for age discrimination. Image: Mark Richardson / Alamy

A fashion designer considered unlikely to leave her role by Superdry management has been awarded £96,200 after successfully claiming she was discriminated against on the grounds of her age.

Ms Sunderland, a knitwear design specialist in her fifties, repeatedly saw colleagues with less experience handed promotions ahead of her despite her receiving “brilliant” performance reviews and Superdry’s knitwear sales recording significant growth.

In Sunderland v Superdry, the Bristol employment tribunal heard that the claimant, who had a degree in knitwear design and more than 30 years’ experience working for well-known fashion retailers, had previously been a senior designer at other companies including Boden.

Sunderland joined Superdry in 2015 as a “designer” as there was no hierarchy and all designers had that title. For six months she worked on men’s knitwear before also taking on men’s knitted accessories.

In 2017 two designers were promoted to “senior designer” level, which Sunderland raised as an issue in her appraisal. Her manager explained that to become a senior designer, she needed to undertake other responsibilities including managing other members of staff. They agreed that this was something towards which she could progress.

Age discrimination

Worker wins £22k following ‘old white man’ comments

Dementia sufferer wins age and disability case against Asda

Legal guide: Age discrimination

A year later, Superdry’s designer hierarchy was expanded to comprise the following roles: trainee designer, assistant designer, designer, lead designer and design manager.

In her claim for direct age discrimination Sunderland put forward eight colleagues as comparators, seven of whom were younger than her, and all of whom had received promotion or had been hired at a more senior level than herself.

Documents disclosed to the tribunal showed that Superdry assessed employees’ “flight risk” – the likelihood and potential impact of an individual leaving the company. Sunderland’s flight risk was assessed as “low”, while the impact of her leaving was assessed as “medium”.

The panel scrutinised Superdry’s talent management process and how employees and their managers independently rated their performance and potential. Performance was measured using the colours red, amber, green and blue, which translated to “requires focus now”, “areas to develop”, “great” or “brilliant”.

Potential was graded in three bands: “stretch” being the highest, followed by “broaden”, with “mastery” at the lowest level.

The tribunal panel did not find these categorisations particularly helpful, saying it was unclear whether brilliant performance was better than great, and whether someone who is given ‘broaden’ as their potential, for example, needs to broaden their potential to achieve mastery.

The flight risk assessment appears to be based on nothing more than managerial conjecture. The inclusion of an assessment criterion that is likely to operate to the disfavour of the claimant, as an older person, and the apparent lack of any objective criteria by which flight risk was to be assessed – it was not even discussed with the Claimant – are problematical for the respondent” – Employment Judge David Hughes

“It may be that the wish to use positive language, and in the case of the colour scheme come up with catchy phrases the first letter of which match the relevant colour, was prioritised over clarity,” the judgment said.

Superdry’s rationale for not having promoted Sunderland related to her potential not being either broaden or stretch, but merely mastery. It also claimed it was because Sunderland only worked in one category of design, despite her working in men’s knitwear, knitwear accessories and later also in women’s knitwear. Other designers assigned to a single category had nevertheless been made more senior designers.

In 2019, Sunderland had to cover for a colleague who went on maternity leave. Despite this additional workload, and a new junior designer reporting into her, promotion was still not forthcoming. From April until July 2020 she was placed on furlough and on her return, she was told that she would be designing the knitted accessories range, for both men and women, which she says felt like a demotion.

She handed in her notice on 23 July 2020. Sunderland told the tribunal that, in the lead up to this, she had felt much frustration and emotional stress, and decided that “enough was enough”. She had made herself ill with the stress of the previous year, and couldn’t continue to work in an environment where unreasonable pressure was placed on her, combined with the refusal of management to give her the recognition that she felt her skills and experience deserved.

She described feeling humiliated and degraded when junior members of staff asked why she was not a lead designer.

In its decision, the tribunal panel said: “We accept that the claimant had every reason to anticipate promotion to lead designer status. She had been given no clear and satisfactory explanation as to why she had not been promoted, which would have allowed her to understand what was required of her in order to gain promotion.”

The judgment reads: “The flight risk assessment appears to be based on nothing more than managerial conjecture. The inclusion of an assessment criterion that is likely to operate to the disfavour of the claimant, as an older person, and the apparent lack of any objective criteria by which flight risk was to be assessed – it was not even discussed with the Claimant – are problematical for the respondent.”

The panel did not accept the reasons advanced by Superdry for not promoting Sunderland. The judgment reads: “The respondent’s criteria for promotion were flawed: they left undefined what key elements of the criteria were and used ambiguous if not positively misleading terminology. We find that the respondent’s decision-makers … have sought to use these criteria to justify a refusal to promote the claimant that does not stand up on its own terms.

“To fail to promote the claimant on the basis that she could not work cross-category (when she could, and did), that she couldn’t work with minimal referral (which she could, and did) and that she lacked managerial/leadership experience (she did not) is a set of facts from which the tribunal could infer that the respondent discriminated against the claimant.”

Superdry was ordered to pay Sunderland compensation comprising £54,798 in compensation for financial losses caused by the age discrimination, a basic award of £4,025, a further £7,500 for injury to feelings, plus interest totalling £77,698. This sum was grossed up to £96,209.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

A spokesman for the retailer said: “Superdry is committed to equality for all of its employees. While the tribunal’s judgment does not reflect our culture and values, we thank it for conducting such a thorough review, respect its decision and will review its findings.”

Employee relations opportunities on Personnel Today


Browse more Employee Relations jobs

Rob Moss

Rob Moss is a business journalist with more than 25 years' experience. He has been editor of Personnel Today since 2010. He joined the publication in 2006 as online editor of the award-winning website. Rob specialises in labour market economics, gender diversity and family-friendly working. He has hosted hundreds of webinar and podcasts. Before writing about HR and employment he ran news and feature desks on publications serving the global optical and eyewear market, the UK electrical industry, and energy markets in Asia and the Middle East.

previous post
Rail signaller discriminated against by staff who watched pornography and burped
next post
Kristie Higgs succeeds in bid to remove LGBT activist from tribunal panel

You may also like

Tribunal finds need for degree in redundancy selection...

14 May 2025

Engineer awarded £25k after employer ‘trespassed’ his home

14 Mar 2025

Estate agent constructively dismissed after desk move ‘demotion’

11 Mar 2025

Menopause-related tribunal claims treble in two years

25 Feb 2025

Law firm discriminated against partner with compulsory retirement...

24 Feb 2025

Protections needed to tackle ‘pervasive ageism’, says MPs

19 Feb 2025

Football club faces modern slavery claim

7 Feb 2025

Men more likely to be ageist than women,...

27 Jan 2025

Race, age and mental health influence decision to...

27 Nov 2024

Employers overlook millions due to hiring ageism

8 Oct 2024

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+