EAT AGE DISCRIMINATION
A partnership had a provision in the Partnership Agreement which required partners to resign at 65 (although they could be kept on by agreement). The cl aimant alleged that this was age discrimination. The Employment Tribunal found that although the provision constituted direct age discrimination, it was justified. In part this was found on an assumption that performance tails off at around this age. The claimant appealed on various grounds, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission was permitted to make representations as interveners.
The EAT dismissed all the grounds save one, namely that the assumption that performance dropped off at 65 was not supported by any evidence and involved stereotyping. In principle, such a rule could be justified, but it was not justified in this case. Matter remitted to the same Tribunal to consider whether the need to achieve the other legitimate aims was sufficient to justify the rule. Observations on the test for justification in direct age discrimination.
Elias J
[2008] UKEAT 0063 – 08 – 1912, [2009] 3 All ER 435, [2009] IRLR 176
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (A Partnership) CA 28-Jul-2010
The claimant solicitor said that the compulsory retirement from his partnership on age grounds was discriminatory, and that the UK Regulations had not implemented the Directive fully.
Held: The appeal failed. The purpose of the provision as to . .
At EAT – Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (A Partnership) CA 13-Jul-2009
Application for leave to appeal against claim of age discrimination by law firm on requiring a partner to retire. Granted . .
At EAT – Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes SC 25-Apr-2012
The appellant claimed that the requirement imposed on him to retire from his law firm partnership on attaining 65 was an unlawful discrimination on the grounds of age.
Held: The matter was remitted to the Employment tribunal to see whether the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination, Legal Professions
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.279796