Updated to include information on BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd v McDowell, in which the EAT considered the correct approach to deciding whether or not the employer's discriminatory redundancy scheme was justified.
In Rowstock Ltd and another v Jessemey and Equality & Human Rights Commission  IRLR 439 EAT, the EAT held that the Equality Act 2010 does not provide protection against post-employment victimisation.
In this age discrimination case, the employment tribunal found that staff in a school conspired to force out a highly paid older teacher as a way of cutting costs.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the Equality Act 2010 cannot be interpreted to cover post-employment victimisation.
This employment tribunal decision highlights a drafting error in the Equality Act 2010 that means that post-employment victimisation is not covered. The decision that the claimant's post-employment victimisation claim could not proceed contrasts with the first-instance decision in Taiwo v Olaigbe and another ET/2389629/11, in which the employment tribunal allowed the same sort of claim to be heard.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to age-related victimisation.