Supreme Court to decide two age discrimination claims
The Supreme Court is hearing appeals against Court of Appeal decisions that held that a partner's compulsory retirement at 65 was objectively justified and an employer's policy requiring employees to have a law degree to achieve promotion was not directly discriminatory.
Mr Seldon and Mr Homer brought separate age discrimination claims that were both dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The Court held that the tribunal did not err in finding Mr Seldon's compulsory retirement at 65 objectively justified, as the organisation's policy was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It held that Mr Homer was not directly discriminated against by his employer's requirement that its employees needed a law degree to achieve a promotion, on the basis that the disadvantage caused to him arose because of his impending retirement and not because of his age. Both cases will go to the Supreme Court in 2012.
- Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police and Seldon v Clarkson, Wright and Jakes and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills Read more about the age discrimination cases in the XpertHR case law stop press service.
- Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2010] IRLR 619 CA Read about the Court of Appeal decision in Homer in the XpertHR case reports service.
- Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2010] IRLR 865 CA Read about the Court of Appeal decision in Seldon in the XpertHR case reports service.
Also
FAQs on age discrimination The XpertHR FAQs section answers questions on age discrimination.
How to comply with the law on age discrimination The XpertHR "how to" section gives guidance on how to comply with the law on age discrimination.
