Equality, diversity and human rights >
Age discrimination
In this case, a female employee was harassed on the ground of her age by her younger manager.
The European Court of Justice has held that German legislation that requires civil servants to retire at 65 can be justified if "appropriate and necessary" means are used to achieve the aim of balancing the employment levels of young and older civil servants to encourage the recruitment and promotion of young people. It also stressed that budgetary considerations cannot by themselves constitute a legitimate aim in relation to a member state's social policy.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the employment tribunal was entitled to impose a wide range of recommendations on a school that it found had committed age discrimination, included requiring a review of many of its policies by an HR professional.
Joanne Magill, associate, and Claire Benson and Ceri Hughes, managing associates, at Addleshaw Goddard detail the latest rulings.
In Rosenbladt v Oellerking Gebäudereinigungsges mbH [2011] IRLR 51 ECJ, the ECJ held that art.6(1) of the Equal Treatment Framework Directive does not necessarily preclude domestic legislation that permits the use of automatic termination clauses based on the retirement age, or the use of such clauses in collective agreements. The crucial issue is whether or not such measures are objectively justified.
The employment tribunal in this case found that comments from two managers in capability meetings, suggesting that an underperforming older worker might consider early retirement, constituted age discrimination.
This well-publicised decision concerns whether or not four assistant referees were discriminated against as a result of a retirement age of 48.
In Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Beck EAT/0141/10, the EAT held that the employment tribunal was entitled to find that, notwithstanding the inherently unlikely nature of an age discrimination claim on the facts, the employer's deliberate use of the word "younger" in a person specification, contrary to expert advice, was sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the employer.
Ceri Hughes, David Parry, and Carly Mather, associates at Addleshaw Goddard, detail the latest rulings.
In Kraft Foods UK Ltd v Hastie EAT/0024/10, the EAT held that a contractual redundancy scheme that capped payments at the total amount of earnings that the employee would have received prior to retirement was justified as a proportionate means of preventing redundant employees from receiving a windfall.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to age discrimination.