Updated to include information on Peninsula Business Service Ltd v Baker, in which the EAT considered the employer's liability for victimisation by an agent surveillance company it had appointed.
The Supreme Court has held that claimants are not required in indirect discrimination claims to explain why the provision, criterion or practice (PCP) puts, or would put, the affected group at a particular disadvantage.
The Court of Appeal has held that the decision to reduce officer head count "to the fullest extent" by forcibly retiring police officers with 30 years' service was justified.
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.
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.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to indirect age discrimination.