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 fixing of the mandatory retirment age at 65 was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of the partnership.
The aims set out in the Directive had to be of a ‘public interest nature, which is ‘distinguishable from purely individual reasons particular to the employer’s situation, such as cost reduction or improving competitiveness”.
It was therefore necessary to identify the objective being pursued, even if not articulated at the time, and then to check it against the test. Here the three objectives were legitimate. Staff retention and workforce planning related to social policy in sharing out professional employment opportunities between generations, and the limiting of any need to expel partners for performance management was was related to the ‘dignity’.
Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr
[2012] UKSC 16, UKSC 2010/0201, [2012] IRLR 590, [2012] 2 CMLR 50, [2012] Pens LR 239, [2012] WLR(D) 124, [2012] Eq LR 579, [2012] ICR 716, [2012] 3 All ER 1301
Bailii, Bailli Summary, SC Summary, SC, WLRD
Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 17, Equality Act 2010, Council Directive 2000/78/EC on equal treatment in occupation and employment
England and Wales
Citing:
At EAT – Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes EAT 19-Dec-2008
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 . .
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 . .
Cited – Carson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Reynolds v Same HL 26-May-2005
One claimant said that as a foreign resident pensioner, she had been excluded from the annual uprating of state retirement pension, and that this was an infringement of her human rights. Another complained at the lower levels of job-seeker’s . .
Cited – Age UK, Regina (On the Application of) v Attorney General Admn 25-Sep-2009
Age UK challenged the implementation by the UK of the Directive insofar as it established a default retirement age (DRA) at 65.
Held: The claim failed. The decision to adopt a DRA was not a disproportionate way of giving effect to the social . .
Cited – Felix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA ECJ 16-Oct-2007
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Spain had legislated for compulsory retirement when it wanted to encourage recruitment; then abolished it when economic circumstances improved and it wanted to encourage people to stay in . .
Cited – Incorporated Trustees of The National Council For Ageing v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform ECJ 5-Mar-2009
(Third Chamber) The trustees complained that the respondent had failed to implement the Directive, in that there remained, for example, rules allowing employers to have fixed retirement ages.
Held: The complaint failed. The Directive allowed . .
Cited – Hutter v Technische Universitat Graz ECJ 18-Jun-2009
ECJ Directive 2000/78/EC – Equal treatment in employment and occupation Age discrimination Determining the pay of contractual employees of the State Exclusion of professional experience acquired before the age of . .
Cited – Petersen v Berufungsausschuss fur Zahnarzte fur den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe ECJ 12-Jan-2010
ECJ Directive 2000/78/EC Articles 2(5) and 6(1) – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age – Provision of national law setting a maximum age of 68 for practice as a panel dentist – Aim pursued Measure . .
Cited – Petersen v Berufungsausschuss fur Zahnarzte fur den Bezirk Westfalen-Lippe ECJ 3-Sep-2009
ECJ Directive 2000/78/EC – Prohibition of discrimination based on age – National legislation providing for an age limit of 68 years for the exercise of a panel dentist – Objective for protecting the health of . .
Cited – Wolf v Stadt Frankfurt am Main ECJ 12-Jan-2010
ECJ Directive 2008/78/EC Article 4(1) Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age National provision setting a maximum age of 30 years for the recruitment of officials to posts in the fire service Aim pursued . .
Cited – Hennigs v Eisenbahn-Bundesamt ECJ 8-Sep-2011
ECJ Directive 2000/78/EC – Articles 2(2) and 6(1) – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Articles 21 and 28 – Collective agreement on pay for public sector contractual employees of a Member State . .
Cited – Prigge And Others v Deutsche Lufthansa AG ECJ 19-May-2011
ECJ (Opinion) Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Directive 2000/78/EC – Prohibition of discrimination based on age – Article 2, paragraph 5 – Article 4, paragraph 1 – Article 6, paragraph 1 – Articles . .
Cited – Rosenbladt v Oellerking Gebaudereinigungsges mbH ECJ 12-Oct-2010
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Directive 2000/78/EC – Discrimination on the grounds of age – Termination of employment contract on reaching retirement age . .
Cited – Kucukdeveci v Swedex GmbH and Co KG ECJ 19-Jan-2010
ECJ Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age – Directive 2000/78/EC – National legislation on dismissal not taking into account the period of employment completed before the employee reaches the age of . .
Cited – Ingeniorforeningen i Danmark v Region Syddanmark ECJ 12-Oct-2010
ECJ Grand Chamber – Directive 2000/78/EC – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age – Non-payment of a severance allowance to workers who are entitled to an . .
Cited – Georgiev v Tehnicheski universitet – Sofia, filial Plovdiv ECJ 18-Nov-2010
ECJ Directive 2000/78/EC – Article 6(1) – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age – University lecturers – National provision providing for the conclusion of fixed-term employment contracts beyond the age . .
Cited – Schonheit v Stadt Frankfurt am Main; Becker v Land Hessen ECJ 23-Oct-2003
ECJ Social policy – Equal pay for men and women – Applicability of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) and Article 141(1) and (2) EC . .
Cited – Fuchs v Land Hessen ECJ 21-Jul-2011
ECJ Directive 2000/78/EC – Article 6(1) – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age – Compulsory retirement of prosecutors on reaching the age of 65 – Legitimate aims justifying a difference of treatment on . .
Cited – Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police SC 25-Apr-2012
The appellant had failed in his claim for indirect age discrimination. Approaching retirement, he complained that new conditions allowing advancement to graduates only, discriminated against him since he could not complete a degree before retiring. . .
Cited – Hennigs v Eisenbahn-Bundesamt ECJ 8-Sep-2011
ECJ Directive 2000/78/EC – Articles 2(2) and 6(1) – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Articles 21 and 28 – Collective agreement on pay for public sector contractual employees of a Member State . .
Cited by:
Cited – Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police SC 25-Apr-2012
The appellant had failed in his claim for indirect age discrimination. Approaching retirement, he complained that new conditions allowing advancement to graduates only, discriminated against him since he could not complete a degree before retiring. . .
Cited – Lockwood v Department of Work and Pensions and Another EAT 4-Feb-2013
lockwood_dwpEAT2013
EAT Age Discrimination – Direct age discrimination. Differences in severance payments on voluntary redundancy in the Civil Service between younger and older leavers.
ET findings (a) that the two groups were . .
Cited – O’Brien v Ministry of Justice SC 6-Feb-2013
The appellant, a part time recorder challenged his exclusion from pension arrangements.
Held: The appeal was allowed. No objective justification has been shown for departing from the basic principle of remunerating part-timers pro rata . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, European, Employment
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.452987