Hindu Priest Triumphs in Age Discrimination Tribunal After Temple Dismissal
A Hindu priest, dismissed from his temple role at the age of 68 on grounds of being "too old," has successfully won an age discrimination case at an employment tribunal. Deoraj Dwivedi, now 70, had served for 11 years at the Hindu Cultural Resource Centre Temple in Sandwell, West Midlands, without any prior issues before his contract was terminated.
Background of the Case and Alleged Misconduct
Mr Dwivedi began his tenure at the temple in June 2013, dedicating long hours seven days a week to teaching classes and sharing his faith. The trouble started in October 2023 when temple authorities discovered he was accepting donations directly from worshippers, a practice known as Dakshina. He was instructed to pass all funds to the temple committee or use a collection box, but he continued to retain donations personally.
In January 2024, the temple ended his contract, citing in a letter that he "had to retire from his services from the temple as he has completed sixty eight years of age." By April 2024, the temple escalated the matter, deeming his actions gross misconduct. However, Mr Dwivedi argued he never wished to retire and was targeted due to his age.
Tribunal Findings and Evidence of Discrimination
The employment tribunal in Birmingham heard that the younger head priest also accepted Dakshina directly but faced no disciplinary action. Employment Judge Claire Taylor concluded that since there were no clear rules on donation collection, only suggestions, gross misconduct could not be substantiated. She noted, "The head priest is the same as Mr Dwivedi in every material way except age."
Judge Taylor added, "Mr Dwivedi was dismissed and the head priest was not. A younger priest was then appointed and both he and the head priest, I have found, continue to receive Dakshina. This is conduct from which I could infer discrimination." The tribunal upheld all of Mr Dwivedi's claims, including unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and age discrimination, entitling him to compensation.
Aftermath and Personal Impact
Following the ruling, Mr Dwivedi has been invited back to the temple to volunteer, leveraging his superior English skills compared to other priests. Reflecting on the ordeal, he said, "It was a painful time for me while the whole matter was going through the court. I never really got a proper response from the Temple and I just felt like they delayed the whole thing until the end." He emphasized that his faith remains unshaken and praised the congregation's support, expressing a desire to return and continue serving.
His daughter Chetna, 32, shared the family's distress, stating, "It was a very painful time not just for my dad but for the whole family. We just felt like they were trying to make it up as they went along." She criticized the temple's management, alleging, "The people in the temple are like gangsters. There are several members of the same family in the temple and they dominate the whole community." She added that the issue wasn't about money but a lack of proper processes, a problem persisting for generations.
Despite the victory, Chetna noted, "Although we have won we cannot get closure yet. He feels like he has lost his purpose." The case highlights ongoing challenges in workplace fairness and age-related biases within community institutions.
