Magoulas v Queen Mary University of London (Age Discrimination): EAT 29 Jan 2016

EAT Age Discrimination – The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed an argument that there was a duty on the Respondent to adduce evidence that it had considered alternative(s) to the provision, criterion or practice (‘PCP’) that it adopted: first, on the facts of the case (as if any viable alternative had existed it would have emerged in the long redundancy consultation process, and none did); and second, as a matter of law, as no authority binding on the Employment Appeal Tribunal suggests that there is any such duty. The Employment Appeal Tribunal also dismissed the linked argument that the Employment Appeal Tribunal was bound to consider ‘manifest alternatives’ to the PCP, as, on the facts, there was no such alternative.

Laing DBE J
[2016] UKEAT 0244 – 15 – 2901
Bailii
England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.560976