Equality, diversity and human rights >
Age discrimination
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that the use of the word "younger" in the person specification for the job vacancy that had been created after the claimant had been dismissed was sufficient to raise the suspicion of age discrimination and shift the burden of proof to the employer.
Employers that indulge potentially discriminatory office "banter" may end up liable, as this case demonstrates.
A 62-year-old worker who was made redundant was awarded over £27,000 for age discrimination and unfair dismissal, in a stark warning for employers that allow their redundancy selection procedure to be tainted by age bias.
The Fair Employment Tribunal in Northern Ireland has found that a small business owner committed age discrimination against an employee after she refused to enter into a joint arrangement with him relating to the purchase of land.
In Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG [2010] IRLR 346 ECJ, the ECJ held that German law that excludes employment below the age of 25 when calculating minimum statutory notice periods based on length of service amounts to unjustified age discrimination contrary to the Equal Treatment Framework Directive.
In Keane v Investigo and others EAT/0389/09, the EAT held that an experienced accountant who applied for jobs aimed at recently qualified accountants that she did not genuinely want was unable to complain of having suffered any disadvantage when she was not put forward for them.
In Wolf v Stadt Frankfurt Am Main [2010] IRLR 244 ECJ, the ECJ held that the German Government's restriction on recruitment as a firefighter to those aged 30 or under does not give rise to age discrimination because it constitutes a proportionate "genuine and determining occupational requirement" in pursuit of a legitimate aim, within the meaning of art.4(1) of the Equal Treatment Framework Directive.
In Pulham and others v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham EAT/0516/08, the EAT held that it is open to an employer to seek to justify the adoption of discriminatory pay protection arrangements following the abolition of a discriminatory incremental pay scheme. However, in this case, the tribunal's decision to the effect that the employer was justified on the facts could not be upheld, because its approach to the assessment of justification was legally flawed.
In R (on the application of Age UK) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2009] EWHC 2336 HC, the High Court confirmed that the compulsory retirement of employees at or above the age of 65 by reference to the prescribed procedure in the age discrimination Regulations is lawful. However, the Court could not "see how 65 could remain" as the default retirement age, following the Government's review in 2010.
In Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Wooster EAT/0441/08, the EAT upheld a finding that the redundancy dismissal of a 49-year-old employee amounted to age discrimination. The tribunal was entitled to find that the employer could have found alternative work for him, but that it had failed to do so because it was concerned that, if he remained employed up to the age of 50, he would be entitled to a more generous early retirement package.
Employment law cases: HR and legal information and guidance relating to age discrimination.