Offering a chair to an older colleague at work could count as age discrimination, an employment judge has ruled.
Being given the opportunity to sit while younger staff stand could lead to 'less favourable treatment', a tribunal concluded.
It means that any employer who offers a chair to elderly workers, rather than their younger peers, could be breaking equality laws as the older person could 'legitimately conclude' they were being treated 'disadvantageously'.
The ruling came after Filipe Edreira, a 66-year-old recycling plan operative, sued Severn Waste Water Service in Worcester after he was asked to sit down during his shift.
The employee, who had worked at the company for 17 years before he was sacked in October 2023, believed his employers were trying to force him out and claimed he was being singled out as no-one else at the site used chairs.
Filipe Edreira, a 66-year-old recycling plan operative, sued Seven Waste Water Service in Worcester after he was asked to sit down during his shift. Pictured: One of the Severn Waster Water service plants
His claim was dismissed as the tribunal found the chair had been offered as colleagues were worried for his health, the tribunal in Birmingham did agree the move'unwanted conduct' that could have been discriminatory.
'Given that we found it was an unusual thing to do, in our judgment [Mr Edreira] could legitimately conclude that he was being treated differently to others and therefore disadvantageously,' Employment Judge David Faulkner said.
Of the 80 employees at the recycling plant, Mr Edreira was the only person aged over 66, although there were four over 60 and around half were 50 years of age or over.
He turned 66 on November 3, 2021, and wanted to work for another 18 months, it was heard.
In an email in July 2022, Mr Edreira - who could not carry out heavy lifting following surgery - said he had heard colleagues say they'd heard bosses 'encouraging people to retire at 66'.
He complained that in May 2022 he had been forced to move from the cabin that dealt with paper - which he had worked in for 10 years - to one which dealt with plastic.
Around the same time, his manager Idris Buraimoh 'asked him if he wanted a chair when he had not asked for one'.
The hearing was told: '[Mr Edreira] replied he did not want one. [Mr Buraimoh] did not give a reason for the offer, though there was nothing unpleasant or rude about the way in which he asked the question.
Offering a chair to an older colleague at work could count as age discrimination, an employment judge has ruled. Pictured: File photo of an older worker in a warehouse
'[Mr Edreira] told us he believes Mr Buraimoh was told to offer it - we assume by management - as part of SWS's aim to get him to leave as someone who had reached age 66.
'SWS says it is commonplace to offer appropriate support which will help employees be more comfortable at work and that chairs are routinely offered to those on light duties or feeling unwell.
'It says that because shifts are 10 hours long it is not uncommon for people to need to sit, and that chairs can also be offered long-term as an adjustment for health reasons.'
The hearing was told chairs are 'routinely offered to staff' who might find them beneficial, because of health or pregnancy, some would prefer not to use them, whilst others may use them from time to time.
However, Mr Edreira insisted employees were not allowed to sit down during their shifts and that he did not see anyone using a chair.
In July, he was wrongly issued with an AWOL letter accusing him of taking unauthorised absence from work. The same month he went off sick and in October he was sacked.
The now 68-year-old sued for age discrimination and harassment claiming the company had tried to force him out after he reached 66. However, the tribunal rejected his case.
Of the chair claim, EJ Faulkner said Mr Edreira's boss had been concerned with his health not his age.
'We concluded on balance that chairs were not routinely offered to employees in or around May 2022,' he said.
'The crucial question...was whether [Mr Edreira] had also proved facts from which we could conclude that the offer of the chair was because of age.
'[His] case was not that he was offered a chair because he was 'old' or 'older than most workers' but because he had reached age 66.
'It had never happened before and there was no explanation given for it, but we did not think that was sufficient of itself to indicate that him being over age 66 was in Mr Buraimoh's mind, consciously or otherwise, when he offered the chair.'
'We were told that Mr Buraimoh does not know why he offered the chair, but we thought that what was a much more likely explanation for the change of practice in this regard, namely that Mr Buraimoh had become aware of [his health condition] at the time of the cabin moves and offered the chair for that reason.'
