AGE DISCRIMINATION
Following funding cuts imposed by central government the Ministry of Justice made changes, among other things, to the rate at which certain Probation Officers progressed up an incremental salary scale. The effect was that progression to the top of the scale would take many years longer than had previously been the case.
The Tribunal found that the policy was prima facie discriminatory in favouring employees over the age of 50 as against younger employees. That finding was not appealed.
However, the Tribunal went on to find that the policy was, in all the circumstances, justified. The EAT rejected the Claimant’s appeal against that finding, holding that the Tribunal was entitled to find, on the facts, that this was not a ‘cost alone’ case (see Woodcock v Cumbria Primary Care Trust [2012] EWCA Civ 330 which held that cost alone could not amount to a legitimate aim capable of justifying discrimination). The EAT noted that following HM Land Registry and Benson and Ors [2012] IRLR 373 and Edie and Ors v HCL Insurance BPO Services Ltd [2015] OVR 713 it is legitimate for an organisation to seek to break even year on year and to make decisions about the allocation of its resources.
The present Tribunal had correctly identified the key questions before it and weighed the relevant factors in the balance. The resulting decision was one which it was entitled to make, and with which the EAT could not interfere.
Citations:
[2019] UKEAT 0149 – 18 – 2506
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.639216