Redundancy Selection Fairness Checker

Attendance can be used but disability-related absence and pregnancy/maternity absence must be excluded. Including these is likely discrimination. Requires careful, documented handling.

Potentially fair if scores are objective, consistent, and applied equally. Risk arises if ratings are subjective, undocumented, or disproportionately affect a protected group (e.g. older workers scored down on "adaptability").

Not automatically unfair but carries significant age discrimination risk. Statistically selects against younger and more recently hired workers, who may be from minority groups. Must be justified if challenged.

Generally considered a fair and objective criterion. Must be applied consistently and documented. Risk if the skills assessment is subjective or if the required skills happen to filter out a protected group disproportionately.

Can be fair if applied consistently. Risk arises if spent or stale warnings are included, if the disciplinary record reflects conduct related to a protected characteristic, or if the process that led to the warning was itself unfair.

Selection for redundancy because of pregnancy or while on maternity leave is automatically unfair dismissal and pregnancy/maternity discrimination. No service requirement. Workers on maternity leave have a right to be offered suitable alternative vacancies ahead of other redundant employees.

If selection is connected to a protected disclosure (whistleblowing), trade union activity, or exercising a statutory right, it is automatically unfair. No minimum service requirement. Compensation is uncapped.

Selecting part-time workers over full-time equivalents without objective justification can be indirect sex discrimination (as women are statistically more likely to work part-time), and breaches Part-Time Workers Regulations 2000.

Subjective criteria are high risk. They are difficult to defend at tribunal, open to unconscious bias, and may mask discriminatory decision-making. Tribunals expect objective, measurable, and consistently applied criteria.

If the pool was defined in a way that guaranteed you would be selected — e.g. a pool of one — this is very strong evidence of unfair selection. The pool should include all employees doing similar work or in similar roles.