O' Reilly v British Broadcasting Corporation & Anor EW Misc 1 (ET) (10 January 2011)

O' Reilly v British Broadcasting Corporation & Anor EW Misc 1 (ET) (10 January 2011)

The Tribunal found that the Claimant was subjected to direct age discrimination and age victimisation by the First Respondent, and age victimisation by the Second Respondent. The evidence did not support the Respondents' assertion that objective criteria unrelated to age were applied in the selection of presenters. The explanations given by the Respondents were inconsistent and not credible. The Claimant's removal and subsequent treatment were materially influenced by her age and her complaints about discrimination.

Citation
[2003] IRLR 640
Parties
Claimant: Miriam O'Reilly; First Respondent: BBC (First Respondent); Second Respondent: Countryfile Magazine (Second Respondent)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim upheld in part
Legal Topics
Age Discrimination, Victimisation, Sex Discrimination, Employment Termination
Employment Law Equality Law Age Discrimination Victimisation Sex Discrimination Employment Termination

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miriam O'Reilly

Claimant

BBC (First Respondent)

First Respondent

Countryfile Magazine (Second Respondent)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant was subjected to direct age discrimination by the First Respondent
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant was subjected to age victimisation by the First and Second Respondents
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant was subjected to direct sex discrimination and sex victimisation

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Claimant was subjected to direct age discrimination and age victimisation by the First Respondent, and age victimisation by the Second Respondent. The evidence did not support the Respondents' assertion that objective criteria unrelated to age were applied in the selection of presenters. The explanations given by the Respondents were inconsistent and not credible. The Claimant's removal and subsequent treatment were materially influenced by her age and her complaints about discrimination.

Court Disposition

Claim upheld in part

Orders

  • Declaration that the First Respondent subjected the Claimant to direct age discrimination and age victimisation
  • Declaration that the Second Respondent subjected the Claimant to age victimisation