A woman who took her employer to tribunal for age discrimination and harassment due to younger colleagues acting ‘noisy and boisterous’ has lost her claim.
Catherine Ritchie began work as an administrator at Goom Electrical in December 2020. Her role involved calling clients to set up visits by engineers to carry out electrical testing.
She was 66 when she started the role, while most other administrators were in their 20s and 30s.
In September 2021, Ritchie began making complaints to her line manager that she found the office a “very noisy environment” which was distracting her from making her calls.
Age discrimination
Tribunal finds need for degree in redundancy selection was ageist
Law firm discriminated against partner with compulsory retirement policy
The tribunal heard that she found it “unprofessional” of colleagues to engage in personal conversations “when they ought to be working”, that “they were not paid to socialise” and that she had difficulty with what she considered to be low productivity.
Ritchie was told to focus on her own targets rather than others’ problems, but at a later appraisal she noted that clients could hear background office noise, which she found to be embarrassing.
She also told her manager that many numbers she called were “dead” or “unanswered” and that the data she worked with was often incomplete, which also impacted her KPIs.
In August 2022, she filed a grievance with HR manager Lexine Savva, setting out concerns about the noise levels in the office and “unmanageable” daily call targets. She claimed the call count system was not working properly and that at the end of each day her head would be “pounding”.
Soon after, Ritchie went on sick leave and did not return before she resigned on 27 September.
Earlier that month, she attended a grievance meeting, where she said she felt she had not been respected when she had asked her colleagues to be quiet.
The company noted that her extra administrative tasks had been removed so she could focus on meeting her KPIs and reaching the correct call levels. She was also told that the call-counting system would be reviewed and the noise levels addressed.
Ritchie asked if she could move to another administrative position, but was told there were none available, so resigned and later filed tribunal claims for direct and indirect age discrimination; harassment related to age; breach of contract; public interest disclosure detriment; unfair dismissal; unlawful deduction from wages and a failure to allow the employee to be accompanied.
None of the claims were upheld. The tribunal ruled that there should not be a problem for an employee aged over 60 to make 120 calls a day.
It also found that a letter detailing a grievance meeting sent to Ritchie in 2022 did not amount to criticism and was merely stating that she had not met her KPIs.
“The tribunal considered that the claimant may have been disappointed to have this information, but did not consider what was included in the letter … with the purpose of intimidating, humiliating and belittling her.”
The tribunal agreed that there was “no evidence or reason” why Ritchie’s managers’ conduct or the letters sent to her were related to her age. It considered that her perception of noisy and disruptive behaviour amounting to harassment was not reasonable.
“The tribunal accepted that the claimant took her work seriously and wished to remain professional at all times, but they considered that her projection of this standard to all those with whom she worked, was not reasonable and results in her having unreasonable feelings of indignation about their behaviour when she did not have justifiable reason to do so,” the judgment said.
“The main issue in this case appears to be the decision to increase the claimant’s KPI targets without prior consultation. She cited the noisy office environment as one of the reasons that would make it difficult for her to meet the higher target.
Liz Stevens, professional support lawyer at Birketts LLP, said: “Since the claimant did not have the two years of service currently necessary to bring a claim for unfair dismissal, she pursued various other claims that do not require any minimum period of service, including age discrimination and harassment.
“The tribunal was satisfied that different attitudes to work and standards of workplace behaviour were not enough to establish an age-related harassment claim on the facts of this case.”
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Employee relations opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more Employee Relations jobs
