In the case of Rachel Sunderland v Superdry PLC Rachel Sunderland, a knitwear designer with more than 30 years’ experience working in the industry, was employed by the Cheltenham-based retailer between 2015 and 2020. The 56-year-old quit in 2020 after being repeatedly passed over for promotion by less experienced members of staff.
According to the tribunal documents, Superdry thought her risk of leaving the company was low “no matter how she was treated”. The review noted the retailer failed to promote her or grant her the job title of lead designer, despite her experience.
The tribunal notes state: “We find that the claimant did resign from her post as a result of these acts and omissions. We accept that the claimant had every reason to anticipate promotion to lead designer status.
“She had been given no clear and satisfactory explanation as to why she had not been promoted, which would have allowed her to understand what was required of her in order to gain promotion.”
Meanwhile, Ms Sunderland claimed the “recruitment, promotion and recognition of other (younger) individuals undermined her standing within Superdry’s design team”. For example, she was told she did not have enough experience managing other staff members, which was required in order to be promoted. However, she highlighted several instances when younger staff members were promoted to lead design roles, despite not having supervisory or managerial responsibilities either. In one case a designer that was promoted had around 20 years less experience than Sunderland.
In another instance, Sunderland was called “scatty” by another member of staff. The tribunal found this to be “loaded with subjectivity”, and the sort of term that “verges on a term of abuse and which the tribunal would not expect to be used to describe a younger, male colleague”.
Superdry was ordered to pay Ms Sunderland £96,208.70 in compensation for unfair dismissal and age discrimination.
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.
