In Jones v Care UK Clinical Services Ltd, Jones (J), aged 51, was unsuccessful in his application for the position of Marketing Sales Executive. The successful candidate was aged 29. J claimed that this amounted to direct discrimination in that he had been treated less favourably because of his age. The employer argued that age played no part in the appointment process. The decision was based upon the candidates’ interview responses and scores. The successful candidate had achieved a slightly higher score than J. The lower score was because J’s skills went well beyond what the role demanded and his needs for job development could not be met given the nature of the role. The best fit was therefore the less experienced candidate, but who had the required skills.
The ET found no evidence that J had been treated less favourably because of his age. The employer had shown plausible non-discriminatory reasons for its decision. There was a genuine concern that J’s previous senior roles, high level qualifications and extensive experience might unbalance the marketing team and undermine other team members all of whose qualifications and experience were of a much lesser order. In addition, J would soon become bored at a low level compared to his previous roles, become frustrated and leave early. Furthermore, J’s desire for advancement could not be met. J was therefore rejected because he was overqualified for the role, not because of his age, and the employer was entitled to make that decision given the evidence.
Content Note
The aim is to provide summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. In particular, where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out full details of all the facts, the legal arguments presented by the parties and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Click on the links provided to access full details. If no link is provided contact us for further information. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, SM&B cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
