Age discrimination: Standard of justification in cases of direct discrimination is in principle the same as that in cases of indirect discrimination
This report relates to 1 case(s)
Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes  IRLR 267 EAT (2 other reports)
The case went on to the Supreme Court, which held that the employment tribunal was entitled to find that the firm's aims were capable of being legitimate (Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes (a partnership)  IRLR 590 SC). However, the case was sent back to the employment tribunal to consider the proportionality of a retirement specifically at 65 (Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes ET/1100275/2007).
In Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes EAT/0063/08, the EAT ruled that the standard of justification in cases of direct age discrimination is, in principle, the same as that in cases of indirect age discrimination. However, it concluded that, although a firm of solicitors was entitled to adopt a compulsory retirement age for its partners, fixing this at 65 on the basis that performance would tend to tail off after this age relied on a stereotypical assumption not supported by any evidence.