This is a preview. To continue reading please log in or Register to read this article

Case round-up: indirect age discrimination; and homeworking arrangements

This report relates to 2 case(s)

  • expand disabled

    France v Westminster City Council EAT/214/03 (0 other reports)

  • expand

    Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Rutherford and others (No.2) [2003] IRLR 858 EAT (3 other reports)

    • Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Rutherford

      Date:
      1 January 2004

      In Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Rutherford and others [2003] IRLR 858 EAT, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that an employment tribunal had erred in law in holding that the upper age limit default provisions in the Employment Rights Act 1996 relating to unfair dismissal and redundancy payments were indirectly discriminatory against men.

    • Upper age limit of 65 lawful

      Date:
      1 December 2003

      In Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Rutherford and others (No.2) (2 October 2003), the EAT held that the statutory upper age limit of 65 on the right to claim unfair dismissal and the right to a redundancy payment is not indirectly discriminatory against men.

    • Case round-up

      Date:
      1 November 2003

      Our resident experts at Pinsents bring you a comprehensive update on all the latest decisions that could affect your organisation, and advice on what to do about them.

This week's case round-up from Eversheds, covering: indirect age discrimination; and homeworking arrangements.