Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes [2009] IRLR 267 EAT

The case went on to the Supreme Court, which held that the employment tribunal was entitled to find that the firm's aims were capable of being legitimate (Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes (a partnership) [2012] IRLR 590 SC). However, the case was sent back to the employment tribunal to consider the proportionality of a retirement specifically at 65 (Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes ET/1100275/2007).

Reports relating to this case:

  • Age discrimination: Standard of justification in cases of direct discrimination is in principle the same as that in cases of indirect discrimination

    Date:
    23 February 2009

    In Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes EAT/0063/08, the EAT ruled that the standard of justification in cases of direct age discrimination is, in principle, the same as that in cases of indirect age discrimination. However, it concluded that, although a firm of solicitors was entitled to adopt a compulsory retirement age for its partners, fixing this at 65 on the basis that performance would tend to tail off after this age relied on a stereotypical assumption not supported by any evidence.

  • Case of the week: Compulsory retirement

    Date:
    10 February 2009

    This week's case of the week, provided by Speechly Bircham, covers compulsory retirement.

  • Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes

    Date:
    5 January 2009

    The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that maintaining the friendly culture of a law firm by avoiding confrontation with underperforming partners close to retirement was not a legitimate aim that could justify the compulsory retirement of partners at 65.