Equality, diversity and human rights >
Age discrimination
In Rolls-Royce plc v Unite [2009] EWCA Civ 387 CA, the Court of Appeal held that a redundancy selection matrix set out in a 2003 collective agreement was not automatically rendered unlawful following the implementation of the age discrimination legislation in 2006.
The European Court of Justice has held that the UK legislation permitting employers to dismiss employees aged 65 or over if the reason for dismissal is retirement can, in principle, be justified under the Framework Directive.
In Live Nation Venues (UK) Ltd v Hussain and other appeals EAT/0234/08, EAT/0235/08 & EAT/0236/08, the EAT held that the fact that the employer's decision to dismiss was influenced by the employee's perceived difficulty in being managed by two younger female colleagues did not give rise to an inference that the dismissal was on grounds of the employee's age.
In Rolls-Royce v Unite [2008] EWHC 2420 HC, the High Court held that two collective agreements that set out an approach to redundancy giving points for length of service in the selection process were lawful under the age discrimination legislation.
In Loxley v BAE Systems Land Systems (Munitions & Ordnance) Ltd EAT/0156/08, the EAT held that an employment tribunal must have regard to the disadvantage sustained by an employee in order to determine whether or not the employer's treatment of the employee was a proportionate response to a legitimate aim.
In Allen and others v GMB [2008] IRLR 690, the Court of Appeal held that a trade union indirectly discriminated against a group of its members where its aim was to secure pay protection and future pay for employees, but its means of achieving this aim - persuading women with historic equal pay claims to settle them disadvantageously - were disproportionate.
This week's case of the week, provided by Addleshaw Goddard, covers age discrimination against younger workers.
A review of a number of recent employment tribunal decisions suggests that some employers remain unaware of the implications of, or are struggling with, the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1031), which became law on 1 October 2006. The decisions also demonstrate the approach that the tribunals might take to the question of justification of discrimination and to the assessment of injury to feelings compensation.
In Bloxham v Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer [2007] ET/2205086/06, an employment tribunal has held that changes to a law firm's pension scheme that discriminated on the grounds of age were justified.
In Félix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA Case C-411/05, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has given its judgment that the Equal Treatment Directive (2000/78/EC) does not preclude a Spanish law permitting clauses in collective agreements that allow employees to be compulsorily retired when they reach a specified age.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to age discrimination.