The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the employment tribunal was entitled to impose a wide range of recommendations on a school that it found had committed age discrimination, included requiring a review of many of its policies by an HR professional.
In Woodcock v Cumbria Primary Care Trust  IRLR 119 EAT, the EAT held that an employer that directly discriminated against a redundant employee by bringing forward his notice of dismissal to avoid incurring the substantial costs of enhanced pension entitlements that would crystallise on his 50th birthday was justified in doing so. Although not directly relevant in this case, the EAT also cast doubt on the "cost plus" approach to justification.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the employment tribunal had gone too far in finding that a witness had lied about his knowledge of the claimant's age and misapplied the reversal of the burden of proof that applies in discrimination cases.
In Rosenbladt v Oellerking Gebäudereinigungsges mbH  IRLR 51 ECJ, the ECJ held that art.6(1) of the Equal Treatment Framework Directive does not necessarily preclude domestic legislation that permits the use of automatic termination clauses based on the retirement age, or the use of such clauses in collective agreements. The crucial issue is whether or not such measures are objectively justified.
The employment tribunal in this case found that comments from two managers in capability meetings, suggesting that an underperforming older worker might consider early retirement, constituted age discrimination.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to age discrimination.