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.
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 this age discrimination case, the police successfully defended a claim by a police officer who left after being chosen for redeployment, but not before the employment tribunal described its cost-cutting exercise as "shambolic" and "to some degree incompetent".
A newly constituted employment tribunal has found that a police force's requirement that its legal advisers have a law degree to be promoted was not justified, in the final chapter in this long-running age discrimination case.
In Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police  IRLR 601 SC, the Supreme Court held that an employer's policy that its highest grade was open only to employees holding a law degree indirectly discriminated on the grounds of age against those close to retirement.
In HM Land Registry v Benson and others  IRLR 373 EAT, the EAT held that the “cheapness criterion” applied by the employer during an early retirement selection process was justified, although indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of age.
The European Court of Justice has held that a clause in a collective agreement excluding professional experience acquired with another company in the same group when grading pay is not discriminatory on the ground of age.
The Supreme Court has held that a requirement that employees obtain a law degree before they could be promoted to the highest grade was indirect age discrimination against the claimant, who did not have enough time to complete a degree before he reached the employer's retirement age. However, it sent the case back to the employment tribunal to decide whether or not the employer's actions were justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
The employment tribunal in this case found that it was not age discrimination for the civil service to place limits on the amount that it would pay under a voluntary "early-release scheme" designed to encourage turnover in the workforce.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to indirect age discrimination.