The employment tribunal has declined to change its compensation award made to a solicitor who claimed age discrimination when he was turned down for a job.
Raymond Levy submitted that he should receive more after successfully arguing at a previous hearing he suffered age discrimination after failing to pass an interview with north west firm McHale Legal. The firm also contested the tribunal's original decision and asked for the award to be brought down.
Employment Judge Langridge, sitting earlier this month, found no reasonable prospect of the original decisions being varied or revoked, saying the parties’ arguments amounted to a repetition of points previously aired during earlier.
Earlier this year, the Manchester employment tribunal awarded Levy almost £12,000 compensation in total for loss of earnings, injury to feelings and in aggravated damages. The claim was limited to whether Levy was not offered a position after interview as a senior solicitor because of his age.
The firm had said it decided against making a senior hire, and also referred to Levy making what it described as a discriminatory joke about his interviewer’s Russian nationality. But the tribunal ruled the firm directly discriminated against Levy by not offering him the role of a commercial property solicitor, and that this decision was taken because of his age.
Both Levy and the firm applied for reconsideration of the remedy judgment, while the firm also sought to have aspects of the liability judgment reconsidered following receipt of written reasons.
Levy submitted that the £6,000 award for aggravated damages was too low and should be increased to £10,000. He also wanted an increase in his compensation by another £3,000 to reflect the ‘potential stigma’ in the marketplace of having the tribunal’s original judgment available to prospective employers.
The firm said that the tribunal had misinterpreted the facts and maintained that it would never have employed Levy at all, disagreeing on connections made between salary, experience and age. It was submitted the tribunal ignored aspects of Levy’s own behaviour, including a threat by him to report the firm to the SRA for non-compliance with directions.