• Login
• Search
• Sitemap

• Home Page -
• Press -
• Articles & Publications -
• Employment -
• Beware "Ageist" Birthday Cards Employers Warned

Introduction

More than 70 human resources bosses from the South West were warned of the potential dangers of "ageist" birthday cards and jokes in the workplace at a mock employment tribunal in Bristol on the 14 November 2006.

Under new age discrimination rules, sending cards with age-related wisecracks, quips about bus passes or being over the hill could amount to harassment and allow an employee to claim damages for injury to feelings against their employer.

The mock tribunal, staged by Ashfords solicitors' Bristol office, and capital management consultants Penna at the city's Council House, heard the case of "claimant" Oliver Overhill against "respondent" Trendy FM Ltd.

"Although Oliver Overhill's claim was fictitious, we hoped to create as authentic an experience as possible," said Ashfords' Chloe Minchington, who "represented" Mr Overhill at the hearing.

"By showing members of the local business community how the employment tribunal operates in practice, we hope to de-mystify the process and give employers practical advice on how to avoid age discrimination complaints."

The hearing was chaired by Roger Harper from Queen's Square Chambers, with HR professionals acting as lay members. Members of the audience also had the opportunity to vote on what they believed the outcome should be.

The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations came into effect on October 1. The law prohibits any less favourable treatment or harassment on grounds of age, and in some circumstances jokes about a person's age could be construed as harassment.

Earlier this month South Gloucestershire Council bosses cautioned workers against sending any ageist greetings cards for fear of falling foul of the new discrimination legislation.

Ashfords is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The information in this article is intended to be general information about English law only and not comprehensive. It is not to be relied on as legal advice nor as an alternative to taking professional advice relating to specific circumstances.