Former Superdry designer wins almost £100,000 over age discrimination

A Knitwear designer has won almost £100,000 in compensation after winning claims of unfair dismissal and age discrimination whilst working at Superdry. 

A tribunal, which was held in Bristol, saw Rachel Sunderland win over £96,200 in compensation after she was refused the role of Lead Designer and was overlooked for promotion in favour of younger colleagues, resulting in her resignation.

Before joining the brand, Sunderland worked in he fashion industry for over 30 years, working for a number of companies including Fang Bros and Boden. She joined Superdry in September 2015.

The tribunal heard that when Sunderland first started working at Superdry everyone had the title of 'designer'. This was changed in 2017 when two of her colleagues were promoted to 'senior designer'.

She raised this issue in an appraisal meeting with her manager but was told she needed to undertake other responsibilities to be reach the role of senior designer. In August 2018, the design team was again restructured with roles of trainee designer, assistant designer, designer, lead designer and design manager.

Sunderland claimed she had all of the experience necessary, as she managed work in the men's, women's and accessories knitwear categories, also taking on extra responsibility in the "busiest time of the year" when one of her colleagues went on maternity leave.

While working at Superdry, her flight risk was assessed as low. This flight risk assessment was neither discussed with the her before it was made or disclosed to her after it was made. The assessment measures an employees likelihood of actively seeking employment at a different company.

After being overlooked for promotion, Sunderland handed in her notice in July 2020, stating that she "couldn’t continue to work in an environment where unreasonable pressure was placed on her, combined with the refusal of management to give her the recognition that she felt his skills and experience deserved".

The employment tribunal found that: "We find that the Superdry did this in significant part because of the Ms Sunderland's age. We have already noted that Ms Sunderland's flight risk was assessed as low. We consider that older members of staff are likely to have a perceived lower flight risk.

"We do not accept the reasons advanced by Superdry for not promoting the Ms Sunderland. The Respondent’s criteria for promotion were flawed. To fail to promote Ms Sunderland on the basis that she could not work cross-category (when she could, and did), that she couldn’t work with minimal referral (which she could, and did) and that she lacked managerial/leadership experience (she did not) is a set of facts from which the Tribunal could infer that Superdry discriminated against Ms Sunderland."