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+

Age discriminationCase law

Former law firm partner loses age discrimination tribunal claim

by Jenna Clarke 20 Oct 2016
by Jenna Clarke 20 Oct 2016 Foot Anstey is based in Bristol. Photo: andyparker72 / Shutterstock
Foot Anstey is based in Bristol. Photo: andyparker72 / Shutterstock

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal against an employment tribunal decision that a regional law firm was not guilty of age discrimination against one of its partners. DLA Piper’s Jenna Clarke summarises the decision.

Age discrimination

Age discrimination awards

Older workers: how to get it right in the generation game

Podcast: Impact of removal of default retirement age

Fennell v Foot Anstey LLP

Facts

Mr Fennell was a limited equity partner at West Country law firm Foot Anstey. He led the corporate transaction team in Bristol and the aerospace, defence and security sector team.

Foot Anstey carried out a restructuring exercise and did not offer Mr Fennell a new partnership. He was instead offered a legal directorship.

Mr Fennell alleged that the failure to offer him a new partnership was due to his age, specifically his being over the age of 45. He alleged that he was treated less favourably than other limited equity partners in comparable positions who were under 45.

Mr Fennell produced statistics for the tribunal that he alleged demonstrated that the prospect of obtaining equity membership diminishes with the age of the candidate. He said it was telling that only one person under 45 was not offered a partnership and only one person over 45 was offered it.

Foot Anstey denied that the failure to offer a partnership was related to age. It submitted that the same criteria were applied to all limited equity partners.

The firm provided evidence that Mr Fennell’s billing had dropped sharply in the year after his performance had been appraised as “excellent” in May 2012.

Foot Anstey told the tribunal that the partners agreed that Mr Fennell should be asked to leave the partnership. Mr Fennell had objected, so a performance review was agreed and targets set.

Mr Fennell did not meet the major target, although was within what the tribunal described as the “soft target range” he had negotiated.

Employment tribunal decision

Following a six-day hearing, the tribunal found that Foot Anstey was entitled to decline to renew Mr Fennell’s limited equity partnership and rejected his claim of direct age discrimination.

The tribunal accepted that the statistics relied on by Mr Fennell showed that “the prospect of obtaining equity membership diminishes with age”.

However, the tribunal did not consider that the statistical picture was sufficient to shift the burden of proof to Foot Anstey to prove that the reason was not discriminatory.

The tribunal found that Mr Fennell could not compare his treatment with that of the other limited equity partners, as there were material differences between their cases. Mr Fennell appealed.

EAT decision

The EAT agreed with the tribunal’s acceptance of Foot Anstey’s evidence that it had made decisions on each of its limited equity partners on an individual basis. Each partner’s case had been considered on a bespoke and individual basis, assessed not just against financial performance, but also against:

  • the partnership criteria;
  • the individual’s area of practice;
  • the individual’s personal circumstances; and
  • the potential for business development (a key factor).

The EAT held that the tribunal was entitled to conclude that, while the statistical picture showed that the prospect of obtaining equity membership diminishes with age, this did not shift the burden of proof.

The EAT rejected Mr Fennell’s argument that “the tribunal had lost sight of the…point…that decisions relating to assessments of potential and personal circumstances might be tainted by subconscious age discriminatory considerations”.

The tribunal had reached an unchallenged conclusion that the assessment of Mr Fennell for partnership was not related to considerations of age.

Implications for employers

This case serves as a reminder to claimants that they will often need to go further than just submitting statistical evidence when alleging discrimination.

The claimant had demonstrated a difference in treatment and difference of age, but had not provided evidence to link the two, to allow the tribunal to conclude that the difference in treatment was because of age.

In this case, Foot Anstey was able to provide evidence that the decision was based on concerns around Mr Fennell’s ability to generate business, unrelated to the age group to which he belonged.

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.

The law firm also produced documentary evidence used in the selection process for all partners, including appraisals and group leaders’ reports.

Employers should ensure that, when carrying out selection exercises, adequate documentary evidence is produced and retained, evidencing the non-discriminatory reasons for the decision.

Jenna Clarke

Jenna Clarke is a senior associate at DLA Piper.

previous post
Five ways employers can support employees who are carers
next post
If HR analytics are the answer, what are the questions?

You may also like

Consultation launched after Supreme Court ‘sex’ ruling

20 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

Tribunal finds need for degree in redundancy selection...

14 May 2025

‘Unacceptable to question integrity’ of Supreme Court judgment

2 May 2025

Trans ex-judge to appeal Supreme Court biological sex...

29 Apr 2025

EHRC: Interim update on single-sex spaces draws criticism

28 Apr 2025

Opposition to Supreme Court sex ruling is ‘wishful...

22 Apr 2025

Supreme Court transgender ruling: ‘common sense’ or ‘incredibly...

17 Apr 2025

Supreme Court: legal definition of woman based on...

16 Apr 2025

Philip Green loses human rights case at ECHR

8 Apr 2025

  • 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+