U.K.: Age Discrimination Victim Wins Legal Battle - She Was Too Young!

Woman sacked for being 'too young' wins landmark case By Michael Herman LONDON, England (The Times), November 12, 2007: A 20-year old woman who lost her job at a London club for being “too young” has won what is thought to be the first age discrimination claim of its kind in the UK. Megan Thomas, from Surrey, claimed she was dismissed as membership secretary at the Eight Members Club in the City of London after being told by her boss that “she was too young and if he had met me a few years later there may not have been a problem.” This morning an Employment Tribunal ruled that Ms Thomas, who has since accepted a better paid job elsewhere, was unfairly dismissed and discriminated against on the grounds of age. Damages will be decided at a subsequent hearing, although experts speculated that Ms Thomas would receive a modest award of possibly less than £1,000. Eight Members Club said the ruling was “very strange…ruling because this is a young person’s business and many of the waiters and waitresses working here are the same age or even younger than Megan”. “She had finished her probation and had made some mistakes, so we decided to end her employment,” the club said, adding that it planned to appeal against the ruling. Ms Thomas’ solicitor, Lawrence Davies of Equal Justice Solicitors, said: “Young workers get a raw deal in today’s society. This is the first time the courts have said age discrimination adversely affects the young and young looking as well as the old.” Age-discrimination laws, introduced last October, protect workers of any age but lawyers said that so far the majority of cases had been brought by older workers. Last month, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer won its case against a former partner who had accused the London law firm of age discrimination by using complicated pension reforms as a way of forcing out older lawyers. Ms Thomas was awarded a default judgement because Eight Members Club did not oppose her claim. This means the issue was not contested or evaluated in court and the Tribunal chairman, the equivalent of a judge, did not have to give reasons for his decision. Lawyers said this means the case will be of limited use to other people considering bringing a similar claim. Rachel Dineley, an employment partner at lawyers Beachcroft, said the case had “little learning value” for solicitors because the issues were not properly tested before a Tribunal. © Copyright 2007 Times Newspapers Ltd.