Equality, diversity and human rights
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 Supreme Court has held that a requirement that employees obtain a law degree before they could be promoted to the highest grade was indirect age discrimination against the claimant, who did not have enough time to complete a degree before he reached the employer's retirement age. However, it sent the case back to the employment tribunal to decide whether or not the employer's actions were justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
The European Court of Justice has held that an employer is not obliged to provide an unsuccessful job applicant with information on the successful candidate, although a failure to do so could lead to an inference of discrimination in a subsequent tribunal claim.
This case is a useful early example, along with McGraw v London Ambulance Service NHS Trust ET/3301865/11, of how employment tribunals are approaching the new concept of "discrimination arising from disability" under the Equality Act 2010. This claimant succeeded in showing that his employer's requirement that he move to a new contract was unfavourable treatment that arose in consequence of his disability and the employer's actions were not justified.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that, in ascertaining whether or not words that reference a protected characteristic constitute unlawful discrimination, the conduct complained of must be seen in context.
Dinu Suntook, Cane Pickersgill and Poppy Fildes are all associates at Addleshaw Goddard. They round up the latest rulings.
David Malamatenios and Georgina Kyriacou are partners, and Krishna Santra, Colin Makin and Sandra Martins are associates at Colman Coyle Solicitors. They round up the latest rulings.
The employment tribunal in this case took the unusual step of upholding complaints of direct sex discrimination and sexual harassment in relation to events that had occurred up to three years out of time.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the employer was justified in deciding who would be chosen for voluntary redundancy on the basis of who would cost the least to make redundant, despite this criterion being indirectly discriminatory against a particular group of older workers.
The tribunal's reference to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in this case could result in women who have a child through a surrogate mother being entitled to the same employment protection under EU law as conventional mothers.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to equality, diversity and human rights.