You have to make cuts. The restructuring is happening. The selection criteria are ready, complete with performance, conduct, and… qualifications. One person does not have a degree. They are also the oldest in the team. You score them lower, they are selected for redundancy, and you move on. Or so you think.
What happened?
That is roughly what happened at Lidl. Mr Norman, a Senior Construction Consultant in his 60s, was one of three people being considered for a single remaining role after a regional restructuring.
Lidl used a selection matrix. Mr Norman scored 17 out of 20. One colleague scored 11. Another scored 18. The difference? The 18-pointer had a degree. Mr Norman did not. He was selected for redundancy.
But things unravelled quickly. There were no records explaining the scoring. Managers were told to destroy their notes. Mr Norman was not given a proper chance to challenge his scores and was wrongly told he could not. When he later asked for clarification, he was told his lower knowledge score was due to his lack of a relevant qualification.
He raised age discrimination. He appealed. He was offered his job back (a year later). He refused. He brought tribunal claims.
What did the tribunal decide and why?
The Employment Tribunal found in Mr Norman’s favour on both unfair dismissal and indirect age discrimination.
The redundancy was genuine. But the process was flawed:
- Managers did not understand how to apply the selection criteria objectively.
- Scoring lacked evidence, moderation, or documentation.
- The consultation was superficial – ‘cursory’, according to the tribunal.
- Mr Norman could not properly challenge the scores.
The scoring criterion that linked knowledge to having a degree created indirect age discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal accepted that people in their 60s are statistically less likely to have a degree than younger workers. Lidl could not show that the degree requirement was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Although Mr Norman may have been dismissed anyway (his colleague was found to be ‘exceptional’), the tribunal still awarded over £50,000, including compensation for injury to feelings. His unfair dismissal award was reduced by 50% under the Polkey principle (which lets tribunals reduce compensation where a fair process might have led to the same outcome).
This was not a bad-faith redundancy process, but it was poorly executed. And that is often enough to land you in tribunal trouble.
What should you do?
- Sense-check your selection criteria. Ask: does this indirectly disadvantage a protected group (like older workers or disabled employees)?
- Do not assume qualifications = knowledge. If you need a degree, be ready to explain why and why there is no less discriminatory alternative.
- Train your scorers. Managers should understand the purpose of scoring and consultation, and be prepared to defend their decisions.
- Consult meaningfully. Allow people to review and challenge their scores. Consultation is not a script-reading exercise.
- Keep your paperwork. Telling managers to destroy scoring notes is the fastest route to tribunal fiction writing.
- Watch your tone. ‘You cannot challenge your scores’ is a red rag to a claimant.
Final thought
This case did not turn on malicious intent. It turned on muddled thinking, weak process, and one poorly explained score. For HR, it is a timely reminder: even neutral-looking criteria can pack a discriminatory punch and it is your job to pull it before it lands.
Source: Mr W Norman v Lidl Great Britain Ltd: 1804509/2023 – GOV.UK
