In this week's podcast, we explore the steps that you can take to reduce the risk of having an indirectly discriminatory provision, criterion or practice. We also discuss what to take into account when deciding whether or not indirect discrimination can be justified.
Updated to include information on Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd, a personal injury case that may have implications for discriminatory behaviour by employees towards colleagues or third parties.
The Court of Appeal has ruled that police forces' use of Regulation A19, which required police officers with more than 30 years' pensionable service to retire, did not amount to age discrimination.
In Essop and others v Home Office (UK Border Agency)  IRLR 724 CA, the Court of Appeal held that a claimant in an indirect discrimination case must establish the nature of the group disadvantage created by the provision, criterion or practice, as well as the way in which he or she has suffered that disadvantage as an individual.
Krishna Santra and Sandra Martins are senior associates at Colman Coyle Solicitors. They round up the latest rulings.
In Chief Constable of West Midlands Police and others v Harrod and others  IRLR 790 EAT, the EAT held that the employment tribunal erred in holding that the indirect age discrimination that arose from the application of reg.A19 of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987 was unjustified.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has dismissed police officers' claims for indirect discrimination on the ground of age. Police forces, to make costs savings, applied the A19 rule in the Police Pensions Regulations 1987 to retire officers who had accrued a certain minimum pension entitlement that could be achieved only after 30 years' service.
The Court of Appeal has held that it is necessary in indirect discrimination claims for the claimant to show why the provision, criterion or practice (PCP) has disadvantaged the group and the individual claimant.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld an employment tribunal decision that a requirement for older employees to accept less generous terms and conditions of employment, as a condition of their employment continuing, could be justified.
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.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to indirect age discrimination.