Lidl Redundancy Selection Criteria Based on Academic Qualifications Found to Discriminate Against Older Employees

In Mr Wayne Norman v Lidl Great Britain Ltd, a senior construction consultant has won his unfair dismissal and indirect age discrimination claims after he was made redundant due to being marked down against his employer’s redundancy selection criteria for not having a degree. The employment tribunal ruled that since older professionals are generally less likely to hold a degree, this criterion indirectly discriminated against him.

Below, we examine the facts of the case and the tribunal’s judgment. If you have any questions about employee rights in redundancy or believe yours have been breached, please contact Redmans Solicitors. As employment law specialists, we can provide answers and help you find a resolution. To learn more about how we could help you, simply:

The Facts in Mr Wayne Norman v Lidl Great Britain Ltd

Background to the Process for Redundancy

Mr Wayne Norman (“the Claimant”) worked as a senior construction consultant for Lidl Great Britain Ltd (“the Respondent”) at its Doncaster regional distribution centre (RDC). His duties included overseeing the construction, alteration and refurbishment of stores in the region. During his employment, he got on well with his team, with many attending his 60th birthday celebration just a few years before the redundancy process took place.

Application of Redundancy Selection Criteria and Initial Outcome

In early 2023, a restructuring was proposed after the number of new store openings and redevelopments had decreased. Staff at the Doncaster office were then made aware of the decision on 30 January. Here, the Claimant learned he was in a redundancy pool of three senior construction consultants for one available role.

The redundancy selection criteria included five key elements: experience, knowledge, skills, overall performance, and disciplinary record. Each element was scored from zero to four, with zero being the worst and four being the best. During the process for redundancy, the Claimant received an overall score of 17, broken down into the following:

  • Experience (4) – Showcasing strong competence in key areas, enabling completely unsupervised work.
  • Knowledge (3) – Demonstrating sufficient understanding to accurately handle most enquiries independently.
  • Skills (3) – Exhibiting competent abilities across key areas such as communication, negotiation, and organisation, with some development needed.
  • Overall Performance (3) – Reflecting steady accomplishment of key performance areas, producing error-free, timely work, and meeting expectations consistently.
  • Disciplinary Record (4) – Demonstrating a spotless record with no disciplinary issues.

Unfortunately, one of the Claimant’s colleagues, Mr Farcas, received a score of 18, which was one point higher. The difference? Mr Farcas, a younger and less-experienced colleague, was scored at four rather than three on his knowledge. 

As a consequence, the Claimant received a letter on 15 February informing him that he’d been provisionally selected for redundancy. It emphasised that this decision wasn’t concrete, and that a consultation would follow in addition to attempts to find alternatives.

Selection Criteria for Redundancy Challenged

The Claimant received a list of alternative roles to consider and a formal consultation meeting invitation scheduled for 20 February. However, before the meeting occurred, he learned that the redundancy selection criteria, namely the scores he’d received, wouldn’t be debated.

This left the Claimant believing that the meeting would serve little purpose. As a result, on the morning of the scheduled consultation, he emailed his manager, Mr Liam Schofield, expressing his concerns and confirming that he wouldn’t be attending.

Mr Schofield subsequently called the Claimant, intending to resolve the matter. He discussed the scheduled consultation and the alternative roles that could be applied for. Nevertheless, the Claimant remained firm in his belief that the consultation was useless unless he could dispute his scores, and stated that he wouldn’t be applying for any of the alternatives.

Seeking to find a resolution, Mr Schofield contacted HR, proposing the possibility of allowing the Claimant to dispute his scores. HR agreed to this proposal, and the Claimant was invited to a new consultation meeting, arranged for 27 February.

The meeting went ahead as arranged, during which the Claimant argued his case concerning his redundancy criteria scores. Once he was done, Mr Schofield then explained the previous scoring, stating, “For knowledge: you were marked down for not having ‘relevant construction qualifications’ in that you do not have a construction degree.” After the 52-minute meeting concluded, it was clear the Claimant’s scores wouldn’t be amended.

Appeal, Withdrawal, and Tribunal: Redundancy Selection Criteria in Question

On 1 March, the Claimant was invited to a further consultation meeting arranged for nine days later. He was advised that the outcome could result in the “termination of his employment” and was requested to bring any work equipment he had in his possession.

The meeting occurred on 10 March, and at its conclusion, the Claimant learned his employment had been terminated that day. He was given the right to appeal, and the decision was confirmed on 30 March in writing.

In the meantime, the Claimant appealed the decision on 16 March. He asked for an independent review of the matter, asserting that he should have been scored higher with regard to the selection criteria in redundancy. However, due to his distressed state and the Respondent’s desire for him to attend another in-person meeting, he decided to withdraw his appeal.

Instead, he pursued employment tribunal claims of unfair dismissal, indirect age discrimination, direct age discrimination, age-related harassment, and another case of direct discrimination (although this was later withdrawn).

With regard to his age discrimination and harassment claims, these concerned two main elements. Firstly, the Claimant argued that the requirement to have a degree to obtain a maximum knowledge score under the redundancy selection criteria was unfair. This was because the majority of professionals in his age bracket didn’t have a degree.

The second element regarded behaviour he’d allegedly faced throughout his employment. The Claimant stated he’d been called “Grandad,” told he was “the youngest, oldest man I know,” and ridiculed for the large font size on his phone.

The Employment Tribunal’s Judgment

Age Harassment and Discrimination Claims

Following the proceedings, the employment tribunal began by addressing the claim of age-related harassment. However, this was quickly dismissed as the tribunal couldn’t confirm whether the alleged comments were made. And even if they were, the tribunal stated they didn’t meet the legal threshold.

It was clear the Claimant wasn’t “immediately offended” by the comments, even referring to himself as the “old dude.” The tribunal stated that this showed he was “at ease” with being one of the team’s older members, and likely wouldn’t have brought this claim had he not been made redundant.

Similarly, the claim of direct age discrimination wasn’t upheld. The tribunal explained that the Respondent “genuinely based” its decision on the assessment of the Claimant’s abilities during the redundancy process, not considering his age. In the Respondent’s view, Mr Farcas simply scored better than the Claimant due to his additional qualifications and associated skills.

Indirect Discrimination, Unfair Dismissal, and Compensation

The tribunal did, however, uphold his indirect age discrimination claim regarding the requirement to have a degree to score full knowledge points under the redundancy selection criteria. It acknowledged that professionals in their 60s were less likely to have a degree than those in their 30s, making said requirement indirectly discriminatory toward the Claimant based on his age.

With the above in mind, plus errors during the redundancy process, his unfair dismissal claim also succeeded. While elements of the process were deemed reasonable, such as the redundancy pool the Claimant was placed in, many flaws were found. Among other things, the Respondent failed to provide detailed information to ensure the Claimant understood his score against the redundancy criteria and didn’t reasonably consider the stress it had placed him under.

Nevertheless, had a fair redundancy process taken place, the tribunal believed the Claimant still had a 50% chance of being made redundant. After all, the redundancy process wasn’t a sham, and it was agreed that Mr Farcas was an “exceptional senior construction consultant.” As a consequence, the tribunal held that the eventual remedy would be reduced by 50%.

When the remedy hearing eventually came around, the Claimant was awarded a total of £50,926.78. His compensation comprised a compensatory award of £46,280.63 for unfair dismissal, plus £4,000 for injury to feelings, and £646.15 in interest.

Redundancy Selection Criteria and Your Rights as an Employee

Employees who find themselves in similar situations may question whether the redundancy criteria were applied fairly or not. However, it’s important to remember that UK employment law offers clear employee rights in redundancy, designed to ensure the process is both fair and transparent.

When making an employee redundant, employers must apply selection criteria that are clear, objective, and consistently implemented. They must also consult meaningfully with affected staff, provide adequate information about the process, and consider suitable alternative employment.

Importantly, the redundancy criteria mustn’t disadvantage certain groups, such as older workers, unless this can be objectively justified. Failing to meet these obligations may give rise to claims of unfair dismissal or discrimination, depending on the circumstances.

Mr Norman’s case highlights how even a seemingly structured redundancy process can fall short. Employees should be aware that their rights in redundancy are protected, and remedies are available when those rights are breached.

If you have any questions about the selection criteria for redundancy in your case, contact us immediately. Redmans Solicitors are employment law experts, and following a quick chat, we can provide specialist advice.

To begin now, please: