Overview

The Court of Appeal has ruled that employers seeking to justify direct age discrimination can only rely on aims that are consistent with the Government's social policy reasons for allowing differential treatment on grounds of age. The judgment gives little guidance on what those policy reasons are, or when an employer will be deemed to be acting consistently with them, but it does imply that employers could be allowed considerable latitude on the matter.

Background:

Leslie Seldon brought a claim of age discrimination after he was forced to retire as a partner of law firm Clarkson Wright and Jakes at the age of 65. Because Seldon was a partner, rather than an employee, r30 (aka the default retirement age), which permits forced retirement of employees, was inapplicable and the firm had to satisfy the tribunal that the treatment was justified as 'a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim' pursuant to r3 of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.

To read on click ‘View Briefing’