ex-BBC presenter wins ageism and victimisation claims

Today ex-BBC Countryfile presenter, Miriam O’Reilly won her claims of ageism and victimisation at London Central Employment Tribunal. The compensation to be awarded will be decided at another hearing in a few weeks time, however, a figure of around £100,000, including lost earnings and an amount for injury to feelings, is likely to be awarded.

Miriam O’Reilly, 53, was one of four female presenters who were dropped from Countryfile when it was moved it from Sunday mornings to a primetime slot early Sunday evenings. The others included Juliette Morris, Charlotte Smith and Michaela Strachan. The current Countryfile presenters are Matt Baker and Julia Bradbury and both are significantly younger than Miriam.

In its judgment, the tribunal said "if the claimant had been 10 to 15 years younger, she would have been given proper consideration to remain as a presenter of Countryfile. The discrimination was not justified. The wish to appeal to a primetime audience, including younger viewers, is a legitimate aim. however, we do not accept that it has been established that choosing younger presenters is required to appeal to such an audience."

The tribunal rejected the BBC's suggestion that it had devised and adopted proper criteria for choosing the new Countryfile presenters and said that the explanation of the selection process offered in evidence by the BBC was "complacent".

The tribunal also found that the decision which not to give Miriam O'Reilly any further writing work on Countryfile magazine was "an act of victimisation" resulting from "annoyance as to the allegations that [Miriam O’Reilly] was making".

This case is a reminder to even the most high profile employers that employers should ensure that clear, objective and non-discriminatory selection criteria should be used throughout all employment policies in order to reduce the risk of employment tribunal claims and promote equality in the workplace.

Find out more about how Hart Brown can help with a discrimination claim

Prime Minister to talk jobs with big business

Is making it easier for small businesses to hire and fire staff going to help the economy and small businesses generally?

A common complaint by employers is that dismissing disruptive or not very competent staff or someone who does not fit into an organisation which in turn causes disharmony within the office is very difficult. There are lots of hoops to go through and whether you do it all correctly or not you can still be faced with a claim in the employment tribunal with its inherent costs. At the same time it is important that employees are given protection. Finding yourself unemployed (as so many have experienced in the last few years) is devastating to your self esteem, finances and life.

Working for an employer for many years only to be dismissed for no reason can’t be right either. Getting the balance therefore of protecting a business so that it can continue to employ people and generate income while protecting the employee’s rights is hard. It is difficult to see how requiring a fee to be paid when bringing a claim in the employment tribunal would make much difference other than assist the deficit!! Perhaps the tribunal should be much tougher when assessing a case in the early stages with a view to sifting out spurious claims. Maybe it should make more use of the requirement for a claimant to put funds into court where the claims appears weak and maybe tribunals should not allow fundamental changes to a claimant’s case late in the day. What do you think?

Read the article here
Find out more about Hart Brown's employment team in Guildford