Mr M Gaskell v Ministry of Justice: 1802032/2022 and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 May 2022 |
| Date | 24 May 2022 |
| Published date | 16 June 2022 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 1802032/2022 and Others |
| Subject Matter | Age Discrimination |
Case Number: 1802032/2020
1805605/2020
1801091/2021
1803850/2021
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr M Gaskell
Respondent: Ministry of Justice
Heard at: Leeds on the, 7,8,9,10,14,15,16,17,18,22,24 and 25 February 2022.
Deliberations in Chambers: 20 and 21 April 2022
This was a hybrid hearing. The claimant and the respondent’s counsel
attended the hearing at the Tribunal. The respondent’s witnesses attended
by CVP video link. The Employment Judge and one of the panel members
attended in person and one member appeared by CVP video link.
Before: Employment Judge Shepherd
Members: Mr. Shah
Mr. Pugh
Appearances:
For the claimant: In person
For the respondent: Mr. Weiss, counsel
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that:
1. The claims of indirect age discrimination are not well-founded and are
dismissed.
2. The claims of detriment for making a protected disclosure are not well-
founded and are dismissed.
Case Number: 1802032/2020
1805605/2020
1801091/2021
1803850/2021
2
3. The claims that the claimant was victimised because he had done a
protected act are not well-founded and are dismissed.
4. The claims of failure to make reasonable adjustments are not well-founded
and are dismissed.
5. The claims of discrimination arising from disability are not well-founded and
are dismissed.
REASONS
1. The claimant represented himself and the respondent was represented by
Mr Weiss. The Tribunal heard evidence from:
Mark Gaskell, the claimant;
Nicole Mason, National Contact Manager;
Robert Heard, Head of Criminal Cases Unit;
Nicola Johanson, Area Contract Manager;
Antony Evans, Head of Civil Change;
David Thomas, Head of Contract Management and Assurance;
Janet Land, National Contact Manager;
Joanne Bainbridge, Head of People and Capability;
Francesca Weisman, Senior Legal Adviser;
Brian Ruggles, HR Case Manager;
Maria Brown, Line Manager in the Exceptional and Complex Cases Team;
Hannah Payne, Head of Transformation;
Janet Peel, Head of Operations and Private Office.
2. At the commencement of the hearing the claimant indicated that he
accepted the respondent’s application to include the witness statement of
Hannah Payne and the admittance of additional documents. He also
withdrew his application for the hearing to proceed as an attended in person
hearing as he had accepted that the case had been listed for a hybrid
hearing and should move on to be heard.
3. The Tribunal had sight of a bundle of documents which consisted of 17
lever arch files and numbered up to page 6046. The Tribunal considered
those documents to which it was referred by parties.
The issues
4. The respondent provided a composite list of issues which was agreed
although the claimant had produced further issues. It was submitted by Mr
Weiss, on behalf of the respondent that the composite list of issues was
faithful to the pleadings and the extra issues raised by the claimant were
factual matters not relevant to the pleaded issues.
Case Number: 1802032/2020
1805605/2020
1801091/2021
1803850/2021
3
5. The issues were discussed at the commencement of this hearing. The
composite list of issues the respondent had prepared was agreed. The
claimant had provided some further issues. Upon discussion, the claimant
agreed that the extra matters he had raised were, in fact, matters of
evidence relating to factual matters and the claimant was happy to proceed
on the basis of the composite list of issues.
6. Mr Weiss said that the respondent believed the composite list of issues
adequately reflected the issues raised by the claimant and insofar as some
are incoherent, that was because the pleaded claim was incoherent.
7. The composite list of issues provided by the respondent was as follows:
(for the sake of clarity, the original numbering has been retained)
Claim number 1802032/2020 (the first claim)
Indirect age discrimination (section 19, Equality Act 2010)
1 What is the provision criterion or practice (PCP) relied upon which the
Claimant asserts is discriminatory?
1.1 A PCP of managed moves that might in certain circumstances
be used to appoint employees on secondment or loan to
permanent senior positions;
The Respondent accepts this amounts to a PCP that it applied.
1.2 A PCP of reliance on the managed move policy in order to
appoint individuals to specific roles without a recruitment
process;
T he Respondent does not accept this amounts to a PCP
that it applied.
1.3 A PCP that provides for the appointment of a member of staff
to posts within a Department without fair and open competition,
in certain circumstances where that staff member's primary
role was no longer extant;
The Respondent accepts this amounts to a PCP that it applied.
2 Did any or all of the above PCPs place the Claimant and persons
with whom the Claimant shares the protected characteristic of age
(being over 60) at any of the following particular disadvantages,
when compared with persons with whom the Claimant does not
share it:
2.1 The ACM role vacancy was not advertised or made known to them;
2.2 They were not invited to apply or were otherwise unable to apply;
To continue reading
Request your trial