It is direct discrimination to call someone a grandparent at work, even if they are one, an Employment Tribunal has ruled. In the case in question, 62-year-old Anne Dopson, a former sales director for publisher Stag Publications, took legal action when a review written for one of the firm’s magazines referred to her as a ‘grandmother’.

The magazine review, read to the hearing, stated:

“So, the Kadjar has gone back after a year of service on our fleet. In that time myself, Luke Wikner, Nat Middleton, Alex Grant and Anne Dopson have all spent a fair amount of time behind the wheel, which basically means it has had three spells as family transport, one as a ride for the bachelor about town and the other as comfy wheels for a grandmother. You can choose who applies to which category.”

Mrs Dopson argued the review was “a dig” at her age and had “raised a laugh in the office”, the Tribunal was told. She emailed her Managing Director, Jerry Ramsdale, which was later filed as a grievance.

She wrote:

“I have no problem with being a grandma and I love and have been called Grandma since 1990 by marriage, and for the last seven years since Tom was born and delight in taking every opportunity to show his pictures to all and sundry, but I don’t agree with what could be perceived as a dig at my age.”

Mrs Dopson later resigned and claimed age discrimination against her employer. Age discrimination can affect all age groups and can occur when someone's age is considered a factor in a work-related scenario.

The judge ruled the review was “detrimental” and “less favourable” because it pointed out her age. However, Mrs Dopson’s claim ultimately failed as it was lodged too late and was deemed an “isolated” incident. The formal grievance was also rejected, which Mrs Dopson later appealed.

The Head of Production at the company, Luke Wikner, then investigated her appeal, which was again rejected, which Mrs Dopson said was a “flawed” and “not impartial” finding.

As a result, she resigned in October 2017 and filed a claim for unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and age discrimination to the Employment Tribunal. Mrs Dopson’s age discrimination claim failed because it was published over three months before she made her claim, and outside the ‘primary time limit’.

However, employment judge Oliver Hyams concluded:

“Turning to the claim about the reference to Mrs Dopson having used the review vehicle as ‘comfy wheels for a grandmother’, we accepted that the article was detrimental treatment and that it was less favourable treatment of Mrs Dopson because of her age, i.e. direct discrimination.”

Judge Hyams did add though:

“That article was not relied on as part of an accumulation of conduct which, taken together, amounted to a breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The only thing done by Stag Publications that was in any way wrongful was the way in which Mr Wikner dealt with Mrs Dopson’s grievance.”

Mrs Dopson’s claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and age discrimination failed and were dismissed.