EAT AGE DISCRIMINATION
UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Compensation
The claimant contended that she suffered both direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of age because of the way in which the employer’s redundancy scheme was structured. Redundancy payments were dependent on age and length of service but in a relatively complex way. She claimed to have been significantly disadvantaged by comparison with certain older workers, and also by those with longer service. It was conceded that there was prima facie direct discrimination.
The Tribunal found that the discrimination was justified. The claimant appealed and the EAT upheld the appeal on the grounds that whilst the Tribunal had identified certain legitimate aims which the scheme was designed to achieve, there had been no proper attempt to determine whether the means adopted were proportionate to those aims, having regard to the significant detriment suffered by the claimant.
On an entirely separate point, an appeal was allowed with respect to a small point concerning the assessment of compensation for an automatically unfair dismissal.
Elias J P
 UKEAT 0119 – 08 – 2207,  IRLR 846,  ICR 133
Cited – Rolls Royce Plc v Unite the Union QBD 17-Oct-2008
The company had entered into collective agreements with the union governing criteria and procedures for redundancy selection. The company said that the criteria were not compliant with the age discrimination regulations.
Held: The union was . .
Cited – Rolls-Royce plc v Unite the Union CA 14-May-2009
The parties disputed whether the inclusion of length of service within a selection matrix for redundancy purposes would amount to unlawful age discrimination. The court was asked whether it was correct to make a declaratory judgment when the case . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271328