Updated to include information on Harrod and others v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police and others, in which the Court of Appeal considered if forcibly retiring police officers was justified.
Definition from the XpertHR glossary.
In Hörnfeldt v Posten Meddelande AB  IRLR 785 ECJ, the ECJ held that a provision of Swedish law that stipulates that employers may lawfully terminate the contracts of employees who reach the age of 67 does not breach European age discrimination law.
In Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes  IRLR 590 SC, the Supreme Court held that direct age discrimination must be justified by aims that are consistent with the public interest factors referred to in art.6(1) of the Equal Treatment Framework Directive.
Line manager briefing looking at retirement, including whether or not compulsory retirement is permissible, voluntary retirement, and managing employees where no compulsory retirement is in place.
In R&R Plant (Peterborough) Ltd v Bailey  IRLR 503 CA, the Court of Appeal held that the employer's notice of its intention to retire the employee did not comply with the (now repealed) statutory retirement procedures with regard to informing the employee of the right to request to continue working beyond retirement age.
The Supreme Court has provided guidance on the components needed to justify a compulsory retirement age, stressing that the chosen retirement age has to be appropriate and necessary in that particular business. It went on to say that, once a retirement age is justified for a workplace or group of workers, the employer does not have to justify every retirement on an individual basis.
The Court of Appeal has held that, when an employer was informing an employee of the right to request not to retire under the repealed statutory default retirement procedures, it was required to cite para.5 of sch.6 to the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006. However, the Court of Appeal said that there was no requirement on the employer to inform the employee of the requirements of a valid request.
In Howard v Campbell's Caravans Ltd EAT/0609/10, the EAT held that a retirement notice that stated that the employee would cease work "after" his 65th birthday constituted valid notification under the (now defunct) statutory retirement procedure.
In Bailey v R&R Plant (Peterborough) Ltd EAT/0370/10, the EAT held that the employer failed to comply with the retirement procedures in sch.6 to the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 when it failed to inform the employee that any request not to be retired had to be in writing and had to state that it was made under para.5(3) of sch.6.
HR and legal information and guidance relating to compulsory retirement.