Age UK ordered to pay compensation to disabled man after being found guilty of age discrimination

Alexander Cubbin sued the charity after being rejected from the role of brand asset designer despite his application never even being considered.

An administrative error meant that Cubbin received a "generic email" telling him he had been unsuccessful and would not be invited to an interview.

As Cubbin is disabled by reason of mental health issues, he was eligible to qualify for an automatic interview under the government's Disability Confident Scheme to which Age UK had signed up.

The scheme means anyone with a disability who applies is guaranteed an interview "if they meet our minimum requirements for the role".

On his CV the Cubbin sated he was "58 [and had] been working in the industry for 40 years and in a voluntary capacity for the past 14 years and I’m not quite ready to put my slippers on".

The employment tribunal heard that rather than Age UK admit an administrative error had meant his CV had not been seen by recruitment managers, the charity attempted to cover its tracks.

Age UK apologised and said that they had given the job to a 55-year-old - but it later emerged that the successful applicant was in their 30s.

The charity's senior brand identity manager, Rebecca King, also sent Cubbin a harsh post-application review which set out a range of reasons he had failed to meet the criteria for the job.

Cubbin told the tribunal: "She was asked to evaluate my CV, not invited to express a bigoted opinion, using rude and insensitive languages to comment on my personality and honesty."

He described the review as a "full-on attack on my reputation" that he found "deeply upsetting".

The applicant added that the comments had been "hurtful" and "humiliating".

Finding in favour of Cubbin, the tribunal said there "was no actual need for a review" and that the charity had "embarked on a self-serving exercise of shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted".

The tribunal judge added the charity "could simply have apologised for the mistake but conclude that following the appointment of the successful candidate, there was nothing further that it could do".

An Age UK spokeswoman said that the charity was "disappointed" by the ruling but that it would "respect the court’s decision".

She added Age UK "prides itself on being a fair employer that actively supports and encourages diversity and inclusion in our recruitment, and we are sorry that on this occasion an applicant did not experience the normal high standards we strive for".