A company has been censured after firing an employee because he was too old and had asperger syndrome.

An Auckland worker has won his battle for compensation after he was fired for being too young and having Asperger's syndrome.

Lichen Wang, 21, responded to a job advertisement from New World Market Ltd (NWML) in December 2014, which was seeking a warehouse worker.

According to a just-released Employment Relations Authority (ERA) ruling, he began work on a trial period of two weeks, working six days a week and being paid $90 per day.

NWML told the ERA Wang was told after a week he was not a suitable employee, but after discussions was given another opportunity to "improve his work efficiency".

READ MORE:

* Richmond restaurant ordered to pay $92,000 in foreign worker case

* Man sacked after "Miss Piggy" quip

* Employment payout after telling boss to 'stick job'

* Auckland migrant worker awarded more than $32,000

In January he discovered that his personal belongings, including a mobile phone, wallet and car keys, had been stolen from the company's kitchen, the decision said.

Wang became extremely upset and told the authority he was told to take the following two days off work because of his distress and so he could get a replacement car key and driver's licence.

But when he returned he was told him employment had been terminated and the company required someone in their 40s.

The company argued Wang had not been told to take two days off and believed he had quit his employment.

NWML owner Zehao Guan told the ERA Wang had tried to elicit sympathy by talking about his personal circumstances and the fact he has Asperger's.

But he had decided to dismiss Wang because of his poor performance, the temporary nature of the employment to cover the Christmas period, his reaction to the loss of his personal property and claims Wang was also receiving a WINZ benefit.

In a statement, Wang's lawyer Daniel Zhang said his client found not only the dismissal upsetting but also the litigation process.

While his claim was strong, the process still took a toll on hom mentally and financially.

"People with these types of disabilities often have a hard time handling these stresses.

"Mr Wang was fortunate that he has supportive parents who were there for him every step of the way...I would imagine in many similar cases the disabled employee may succumb to the stress and never pursue the claim to the end."

In her decision, authority member Eleanor Robinson said Wang was not provided with a written employment agreement, hence was not subject to an official trial period.

It was against the law to discriminate against an employee on the basis of age or disability, both of which NWML appeared to have done.

The company's job advertisement seeking an employee "50 years or below" was a breach of the Employment Act.

It was also clear one of the reasons Wang was dismissed was because of his reaction to the loss of his property.

"Mr Wang clearly had a very emotional reaction to the loss of his property, which could have been exacerbated as the result of his disability.

"Whilst I fully accept that NWML was sympathetic and helpful to him in that situation, the fact that Mr Wang told Mr Guan of his disability, his reaction to the loss of his property, and that he was receiving a benefit related to his disability, influenced Mr Guan in deciding to terminate Mr Wang's employment."

The reasons given to dismiss Wang were not what could have been expected by a fair and reasonable employer, she said. "I determine that NWML discriminated against Mr Wang on the prohibited grounds of age and disability."

Wang's pay rate, first $90 then rising to $100 a day, was under the minimum wage but the shortfall had been corrected

Robinson ordered NWML to pay Wang compensation of $5000.

NWML's lawyer Jennifer Wickes said her client was disappointed with the decision and considering their options.

They believed they had acted at all times with respect to Wang but had not realised the importance of having the employment terms and warnings in writing.

"There has been much publicity about 90-day trial periods but less coverage about the need for such periods to be in a particular form and recorded as part of a written agreement.

"There seems to be a not uncommon misperception that until an employee has passed the trial period stage there is no need for a written employment agreement. This, of course, is quite incorrect."

* A previous version of this story noted that Wang was fired because he was too old, rather than too young. We apologise for the error.