In a case alleging indirect sex discrimination in the differing rules denying entitlement to redundancy payments for men over 65, the tribunal should be ready to look at a wide range of statistics. The test is whether the rule imposed some condition which could be met only by a substantially smaller proportion of one sex rather than the other, and where that difference was without objective justification. The tribunal had erred in law in not inviting the secretary of state to take part in the case, given the obvious possible existence of an objective justification.
Judges:
The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President)
Citations:
Times 21-Aug-2001, EAT/1128/99, [2002] ICR 123, [2001] UKEAT 1128 – 99 – 1007
Links:
Statutes:
EC Treaty 141, Employment Rights Act 1996 109 156
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Rutherford and Another; Same v Bentley EAT 2-Oct-2003
The claimants sought to challenge the legislation which removed their employment rights upon attaining the age of 65, arguing that this was discriminatory against men. The Secretary of State appealed the tribunal’s decision.
Held: The tribunal . .
See also – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Rutherford, Bentley, Harvest Town Circle Ltd (In Liquidation) EAT 22-May-2003
EAT Sex Discrimination – Indirect . .
Cited – Rutherford and Another v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 3-Sep-2004
The claimants alleged that the legislation governing retirement was indirectly discriminatory against men. Though the right not to be unfairly dismissed maximum age limit was the same for men and for women, that did not apply on a redundancy.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168286