In the case of Mr D Finch v Clegg Gifford & Co Ltd a long-serving insurance worker has won an age discrimination case after his boss claimed he has been around ‘as long as Pontius Pilate’.
Managing Director Shirley Bellamy made the remark to David Finch as they were negotiating a settlement deal for him to leave her firm, an employment tribunal heard.
The 66 year old – who had worked in the industry ‘a great many years’ – found the comparison to the ancient Roman governor of Israel who ordered the crucifixion of Jesus Christ more than 2,000 years ago ‘humiliating and offensive’.
Mrs Bellamy also asked him if he was going to have an afternoon nap due to him falling asleep at work because of multiple health conditions and suggested the heart attack survivor move his holiday forward as the Covid pandemic might prove fatal for him.
Mr Finch is now in line for compensation after winning age and disability discrimination claims against firm Clegg Gifford & Co.
The tribunal heard he was ‘obviously very good’ at his job but suffered from diabetes and anaemia, medication for which made him drowsy.
The tribunal upheld part of Mr Finch’s claim of victimisation, constructive dismissal and part of his claim of age related harassment.
In its judgement the panel said: ‘It may be due to the longevity of [Mrs Bellamy’s] career, but it became apparent…that she has a complete lack of such as equality or diversity training.
‘The picture we have got of [Mrs Bellamy] is that she can be somewhat thoughtless in how she expresses herself and in ways which we have now found can be, on occasion, insensitive at least.
‘The Employment Tribunal is unanimous that the reference to Pontius Pilate is objectively capable of being offensive. By analogy, it might be deeply offensive to a Christian.’
Asking Mr Finch if he was going to have a nap was ‘crass’, the panel found, and in regard to the early holiday remark, it added: ‘[Mr Finch] clearly perceived that to be deeply hurtful and humiliating given how life-threatening his disabilities were.’
The tribunal also found that Mrs Bellamy was ‘forcing his hand’ and victimised him by demanding he return to work after rejecting the settlement offer.
Overall, ‘these acts of discrimination were cumulatively serious enough to justify [Mr Finch] in resigning and treating himself as constructively dismissed because of this discrimination,’ it ruled.
A hearing to determine the level of compensation Mr Finch will receive will take place at a later date.
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.
