EAT Age Discrimination – The Claimants were employed by the Respondent as civil servants. They were members of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. The Respondent operated a compensation scheme whereby a lump sum was payable in respect of loss of office to the Claimants, who were leaving their posts on a voluntary basis. The amount payable depended on whether the Claimants were eligible to take a pension earned during employment with Respondent as at the date of termination, with no actuarial reduction. If so, the sum payable was 6 months salary. Other employees, who left before being entitled to pension immediately with no reduction, would be paid a lump sum equivalent to a maximum of 21 months salary, depending on the length of time between termination and their entitlement to full pension. The Claimants argued that entitlement to pension was dependent on their having reached the age of 60, which both had. They compared themselves to other employees, members of the same pension scheme, who were leaving, and who were younger and so were receiving higher compensation payments. The Employment Tribunal held a Pre Hearing Review on the preliminary point of whether the Claimants were in the same or not materially different circumstances to the comparators. It decided that they were in materially different circumstances and dismissed the claim.
Held: the ET erred in law. The circumstances of Claimants and comparators were not materially different. The difference between them was age, which is the protected characteristic. It cannot found the difference between Claimant and comparator. Case remitted to the same Tribunal to proceed to the second question of objective justification.
Lady Stacey
[2014] UKEAT 0309 – 12 – 2301
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.520734