A council worker has sued for discrimination after missing out on a pension worth £350,000 when he was made redundant three days before his 55th birthday.
Lee Henley, 57, had worked for Thurrock Council in Essex for 35 years when he was told restructuring plans within the authority meant he would be let go.
Mr Henley initially believed he would finish at the Council after his 55th birthday - meaning he would be entitled to the entirety of his pension.
But he was left short hundreds of thousands of pounds after changes in redundancy plans - brought in while Mr Henley was on holiday - brought the date forward by three days before his birthday.
He subsequently took the case to an employment tribunal, claiming age discrimination. However, his claim has now been dismissed by an employment judge.
Mr Henley began working at Thurrock Council in 1989. His employment ended on July 22, 2024, having worked at the authority for 35 years with an 'exemplary attendance record'.
By 2022, he had become the Head of Information Management - but the Council was in 'significant financial difficulty' and had the highest level of debt of any local authority in England at the time.
Council worker Lee Henley sued for discrimination after he missed out on £350k pension when he was made redundant three days before his 55th birthday
The unitary authority was declared effectively bankrupt in 2022, with its peak debt reportedly at £1.5 billion. As a result, a recovery plan was put in place as there 'was a need for substantial savings'.
In October 2023, PwC began analysis on the Council and recommended major changes to various departments.
It was proposed the Information Management department - where Mr Henley was working - would be disbanded and there would be two redundancies, saving £109,000.
It was anticipated there would be 37 redundancies in total and the changes would be implemented between February and April 2024.
It has been estimated the lump sum of early retirement for Mr Henley would be £357,858.85.
This arose because employees who are made redundant once they have reached the age of 55 are entitled to receive their full accrued pension immediately in addition to a redundancy payment.
Those employees who are made redundant before reaching the age of 55 are not so entitled and will only receive an equivalent pension at their normal retirement age, ten or more years later.
Mr Henley met with Head of Service Sarah Hirt and they discussed ending his notice period on July 28 - meaning he would still be employed on his 55th birthday and therefore entitled to his full pension.
Mr Henley worked for Thurrock Council in Essex for 35 years when he was told restructuring plans within the authority meant he would be let go (Pictured: Thurrock Council Offices)
This would be due to a 45-day consultation period, whereas a 30-day period would lead to his last day being before his birthday.
He later met with monitoring officer and executive director of corporate services Daniel Fenwick to discuss redundancies where he said his preference was to take redundancy rather than maintain his role.
In March 2024, Mr Henley went on holiday believing his last day would be after his birthday and he would therefore get his full pension.
During his absence Mrs Hirt had two meetings with Mr Fenwick to discuss the finer details of the redundancies.
It was agreed there would be fewer than 100 employees made redundant - meaning the consultation period reduced from 45 days to 30 days and therefore Mr Henley's last day would be before his 55th birthday.
Mr Fenwick emailed Mrs Hirt saying: 'When is his birthday? We don't want this to look contrived either way in terms of EDT [Effective Date of Termination].'
Mr Fenwick accepted the timing was 'awkward'.
Mrs Hirt said: 'I hope you are sitting down, the strain alone for LH post is £359K plus redundancy cost at £42,603 total cost is £401,603.'
On Mr Henley's first day back from his holiday, he had a meeting with Mrs Hirt where he was told his consultation period was now likely to last for 30 days rather than 45 days.
On April 3, he emailed Mrs Hirt telling her of the 'significant impact' the change would have on him and referenced his long service but was told accessing his pension was not an appropriate reason to extend his consultation period.
On April 17, Mr Henley was signed off sick with stress and anxiety and was told the consultation period would not be extended.
He later received his notice of dismissal and remained on sick leave until the end of his employment on July 22 - three days before his 55th birthday.
Internal vacancies were advertised whilst he was off and he was encouraged to apply for another role, however, he said it was not right for him.
He eventually appealed his redundancy - but it was dismissed.
Mr Henley unsuccessfully brought claims of direct and indirect age discrimination to an employment tribunal in East London.
Employment Judge Bruce Gardiner said: 'I accept that this was Mr Fenwick showing his awareness that the last day of [Mr Henley's] employment was likely to be close to his 55th birthday, with significant implications both for [Mr Henley] and for [Thurrock Council].
'He wanted to avoid the suggestion that the process had been manipulated so as to achieve a particular outcome - either in [Mr Henley] or [Thurrock Council's] favour.
'The decision to reduce the consultation period from 45 days to 30 days was not an act of age discrimination.
'[Mr Henley] has not proved facts from which I could conclude in the absence of a non-discriminatory explanation that this decision could have been influenced by [Mr Henley's] age, apart from the fact that Mrs Hirt knew of [Mr Henley's] age.
'It was a decision that applied to all redundancy exercises that were instigated at the same time as the process involving Information Management.'
Judge Gardiner added there was 'no evidence' any objection was raised to the reduction in days from 45 to 30 by the recognised trade unions who were closely involved with redundancy processes.
He said: 'Undertaking this exercise, it is clear that had I found that there was some age discrimination in the decisions that were made so as to dismiss [Mr Henley] before his 55th birthday, it would have been justified.
'[Mr Henley] had no entitlement to an enhanced pension from the age of 55.
'If [Mr Henley] received an enhanced pension, the cost to [Thurrock Council] would have reduced the sums available to fund other frontline services by over £350,000.'