In Kraft Foods UK Ltd v Hastie EAT/0024/10, the EAT held that a contractual redundancy scheme that capped payments at the total amount of earnings that the employee would have received prior to retirement was justified as a proportionate means of preventing redundant employees from receiving a windfall.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that a redundancy scheme that incorporated an age-related cap on payments was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of preventing employees from receiving a "windfall" and was not age discriminatory.
The Court of Appeal has held that the requirement that an employee who was close to retirement complete a law degree before he could be promoted was not indirect age discrimination. The particular disadvantage that the employee suffered was not the result of age discrimination but of the employee's forthcoming retirement.
Determining and applying selection criteria is often a tricky area for employers going through a redundancy process. This case is an excellent example of how not to do it, and sets out clearly the employer's numerous mistakes.
This week's case of the week, provided by Thomas Eggar, covers age discrimination.
This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers redundancy selection criteria.
The Court of Appeal has upheld a High Court decision that two collective agreements giving points for length of service in the redundancy selection process are lawful under the age discrimination legislation.
This week's case of the week, provided by DLA Piper, covers age discrimination.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to indirect age discrimination.