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.
This week's case of the week, provided by Speechly Bircham, covers compulsory retirement.
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.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that a 55 year old was not discriminated against when his employer dismissed him for displaying ageist attitudes towards two younger managers.
The Advocate General has said that UK legislation permitting employers to dismiss employees aged 65 or over if the reason for dismissal is retirement can, in principle, be justified under the Framework Directive.
This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers age discrimination in redundancy schemes.
This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers age discrimination.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held that an employment tribunal did not correctly assess whether or not a redundancy scheme that excluded older workers could be justified.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has considered the scope of the justification defence in claims of direct age discrimination.
This week's case of the week, provided by Addleshaw Goddard, covers age discrimination against younger workers.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to direct age discrimination.