Spencer Keen reports on the correct approach to tainted information cases
Where a line manager prepares a damning report on an employee because of a protected characteristic such as age and the report is used by another manager to dismiss the employee, is the dismissal itself an act of direct discrimination? This was the question in the case of CLFIS (UK) Ltd v Dr Reynolds OBE [2015] EWCA Civ 439, [2015] All ER (D) 20 (May).
Dr Mary Reynolds was, for many years, the Chief Medical Officer of Canada Life. She started work for them in 1968. In 2006 she ceased being an employee and entered into a consultancy contract with CLFIS, a company in the Canada Life Group. Her consultancy agreement was terminated on 31 December 2010 when the claimant was 73 years old.
Dr Reynolds claimed that her termination was an act of direct age discrimination. She made a claim in the Bristol Employment Tribunal which was dismissed. She appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) and Singh J allowed her appeal. On 30 April 2015 the Court of Appeal re-instated the
