LTIP rule change—parent company not agent of employer for indirect age discrimination claim (Fasano v (1) Reckitt Benckiser Group Plc (2) Reckitt Benckiser Health Ltd)

Table of contents

• What are the practical implications of this judgment?
• What is the background?
• Relevant law
• Background facts
• Decision of the employment tribunal
• What did the EAT decide?
• Justification
• Agency
• Failure to bring a formal cross-appeal
• Case details

Article summary

Employment analysis: In the context of an indirect age discrimination claim relating to changes made by a parent company to the rules of a long term incentive plan (LTIP), the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that there is no scope for a ‘purposive’ construction of section 109 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010), under which a principal becomes liable for the discriminatory acts of their agent. It is only if there are two genuinely competing interpretations of the relevant statutory provision that regard can be had to the general purpose of the statute to ‘deter and combat discrimination’ in construing it and deciding which interpretation to adopt; section 109 is not such a statutory provision, according to the EAT.