Compulsory retirement: Court of Appeal dismisses law firm partner's age discrimination appeal
This report relates to 1 case(s)
-
expand
Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes and Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2010] IRLR 865 CA (1 other report)
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) [2012] 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).
age discrimination | justification | partnership | compulsory retirement
The Court of Appeal has held that it could be legitimate for a law firm to have a cut-off age after which partners are required to retire to avoid forcing an assessment of their drop in performance, thus maintaining a confrontation-free workplace.
