Title: “Fair vs Illegal Redundancy Selection: Avoiding Bias with Objective Criteria”

Title: “Fair vs Illegal Redundancy Selection: Avoiding Bias with Objective Criteria”

In the landmark Norman v Lidl case, the Employment Tribunal confirmed that using a university degree as a selection criterion in redundancy decisions can amount to age discrimination. Despite being 63 and with over two decades of service, Mr Norman was scored lower on “knowledge” simply because he lacked a relevant degree. Research showed people in their 60s are significantly less likely to hold degrees than those in their 30s—making Lidl’s criterion indirectly discriminatory.

✅ What Makes Selection Criteria Fair

Redundancy selection can be legal when based on:

1. Objective, role-related performance metrics

   • Years of service, specific project outcomes, KPI achievements, and documented performance reviews.

2. Relevant skills and competencies

   • Evidence of job-specific abilities, such as leadership, communication, technical expertise—demonstrated via appraisals or assessments.

3. Disciplinary and attendance records

   • Well‑documented HR info, including absences and conduct, applied consistently across staff.

4. Transparent processes and meaningful consultation

   • Sharing scoring with employees, allowing challenges, and holding genuine two-way consultation meetings; not just ticking boxes

⚠️ What Turns Criteria Unlawful

Employers must avoid criteria that:

• Indirectly discriminate – Like degrees, which older staff are less likely to possess unless unequivocally essential for the role; even then, a robust justification is needed .

• Rely on unverified assumptions – Such as judging absence due to illness without documented context.

• Lack justification – If a criterion disproportionately disadvantages a protected group, employers must prove it’s essential and proportionate.

• Avoid fair consultation and documentation – Failing to explain or record the scoring undermines fairness

📌 Key Lessons from Norman v Lidl

• A scoring matrix must be grounded in objective evidence—not guesses or unequal assumptions.

• Every candidate should see their scores and be allowed to question them in meaningful consultations.

• Managers must be trained to apply criteria properly, avoid bias, and provide clear reasoning for each score

• Any criterion that disadvantages older, disabled, or other protected groups requires justification backed by data—or it will fail legal scrutiny.

🛠 Introducing Our Compliant Redundancy-Selection Matrix

For organisations navigating redundancy while avoiding fair-criteria pitfalls, we’ve developed a legally compliant, objective selection matrix. It ensures full transparency and legal defensibility by:

• Scoring on measurable performance, skills, disciplinary, and attendance records.

• Excluding unfair proxies like age, qualifications that aren’t demonstrably required, or assumptions about drive or adaptability.

• Providing full documentation, employee access to scores, and structured challenge mechanisms during consultation.

👉 Ready to implement a robust, legally watertight selection process?

Download our redundancy selection matrix template today and safeguard your business with fairness and legal compliance.