Mr L Garcia v Bellus Print Ltd and S E Tayefe: 2206048/2019
JUDGMENT
[1]No response to the claim has been presented by either respondent. Pursuant to Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013, the claimant’s complaints of age and sex discrimination therefore succeed against both respondents.[2]The hearing set for 5 March 2021 will proceed to consider issues of remedy. The respondents may attend the hearing but may only participate to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge who hears the case. _____________________________ Regional Employment Judge Wade Date_23 February 2021_________[1]Compensation for discrimination because of age and sex is assessed as follows:1.1 Loss of earnings £2,758.001.2 Injury to feelings £6,000.001.3 Interest on loss of earnings £78.051.4 Interest on injury to feelings £679.80[2]The total sum payable by the Respondent to the Claimant is £9,515.85REASONS
[1]By his claim to the Tribunal the Claimant, Mr Garcia, made complaints of direct discrimination because of age and sex. The Respondents did not present a response and the Tribunal gave a judgment in Mr Garcia’s favour on liability under rule 21. This hearing was to determine the issues as toremedies.
[2]With the agreement of Mr Garcia, the hearing was held by video (CVP). The Respondents did not attend or seek to take part in the hearing. Case Number: 2206048/2019 V 2[3]Mr Garcia gave oral evidence in support of his claim and relied on a witness statement, which mainly set out details of other cases with regard to awards for injury to feelings. He confirmed the contents of that as being true, and answered questions from me. I accepted the evidence that he gave.[4]The claim concerns a job advert placed by the Respondents in November 2019, and seen by Mr Garcia, for a position as a trainee broker. Mr Garcia, who is a man and was at the time 55 years of age, noticed the following about the advert:4.1 It stated that the vacancy was for a “female trainee broker (16-21 years old only).4.2 The skills and attributes sought included “youthful exuberance”.4.3 It stated that the successful candidate would be working with an “energetic fun team.”[5]Mr Garcia told me that he applied for the job but received no acknowledgement or reply from the Respondent. He said that he felt upset and humiliated on age and gender grounds. He felt insulted by the suggestion that exuberance was only to be found in younger people. When I asked him, he said that he did not know whether, all things being equal, he would have got the job. He believed that it was possible, as he works as a market researcher and adviser. He thought that the chances might have been 50%[6]Mr Garcia put his claim for financial losses on the basis that he would have worked in the role for 6 months. Assuming 37.5 hours per week at a wage of £8.21, this produced a figure of £8,004. After deduction of the sums that he has earned over the relevant 6 months, there remains £5,517. I found Mr Garcia’s approach of limiting the claim to 6 months, and allowing for a 50% chance of getting the job to be reasonable. I therefore divided £5,517 by half, giving £2,758.[7]I found that the award for injury to feelings should reflect the lower Vento band. This was essentially a single event, although it involved discrimination in relation to two protected characteristics and left Mr Garcia feeling humiliated. I assessed compensation for injury to feelings at £6,000.[8]I assessed interest on the award for loss of earnings at 8% from the mid point between November 2019 and the hearing, being £78.05 (£2758 x 5.66%) and on the award for injury to feelings at £679.80 at 8% from November 2019 to the date of the hearing, being £679.80 (£6,000 x 11.33%).[9]The total sum payable to Mr Garcia is therefore calculated as follows: 2,758 + 6,000 + 78.05 + 679.80 = £9,515.85 Case Number: 2206048/2019 V 3 Employment Judge Glennie