In Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes (no 2)  IRLR 748 EAT, the EAT held that a compulsory retirement age of 65 for partners in a law firm was objectively justified age discrimination. Superior courts had already determined that there were legitimate aims for the policy, and the only issue remaining for the tribunal was whether or not 65 was reasonably necessary for achieving them. The tribunal did not err in concluding that it was.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has dismissed an appeal against a finding that a mandatory retirement age of 65 for partners in a law firm was justified.
In Heron v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council EAT/0566/12, the EAT held that direct age discrimination in accordance with the terms of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme did not give rise to the statutory authority defence under the Equality Act 2010.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has rejected a council's claim that it was required by an enactment to place a cap on the redundancy pay of an older worker who had reached civil service pension age.
This case serves as a reminder of the importance of having a recruitment policy and procedure in place that is not discriminatory and properly implemented and followed and of recording each stage of the recruitment process.
The Court of Appeal has confirmed that age-related differences between the claimant and his or her comparator should not be taken into account when deciding whether or not the claimant suffered less favourable treatment because of his or her age.
The employment tribunal in this age discrimination case found that the employer discriminated against a 77-year-old potential recruit by failing to make enquiries about alternative driving insurance cover for him after one telephone conversation with its usual insurance provider.
The employer discriminated against an employee by withdrawing his permanent health insurance (PHI) benefits when he reached the age of 55, found the employment tribunal in this age discrimination case.
In Lockwood v Department for Work and Pensions and another EAT/0094/12, the EAT held that a voluntary redundancy scheme providing higher severance payments to older workers did not amount to unlawful direct age discrimination because the differential treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim of a public interest nature.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to direct age discrimination.