EAT AGE DISCRIMINATION
Contractual redundancy scheme incorporating a cap preventing employees recovering more than they would have earned if they had remained in employment until retirement age – Cap applied to Claimant, reducing the amount that he would otherwise have received by some andpound;14,000 – Tribunal holds that cap disproportionately applied to those approaching retiring age and was unjustifiable and accordingly that it constituted unlawful discrimination contrary to the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006
Held, allowing appeal, that, since the purpose of the scheme was to compensate employees for the loss of the expectation of remaining in employment, to impose a cap preventing the ‘windfall’ of an employee recovering more than he could have recovered had he stayed in employment until retirement necessarily constituted a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim – Dicta in Loxley v BAE Systems Land Systems (Munitions and Ordnance) Ltd [2008] ICR 1348 applied – Alternative grounds of appeal based on alleged bias rejected.
Judges:
Underhill P J
Citations:
[2010] UKEAT 0024 – 10 – 0607
Links:
Statutes:
Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420260
