EAT AGE DISCRIMINATION
The Tribunal found that the claimant had been discriminated on grounds of age. The employers introduced a requirement that to be graded at the top grade, and to receive the higher salary linked to that grade, an employee had to have a law degree. The claimant submitted that this was age discrimination. The Tribunal agreed on the grounds that given his age – he was 61 – he was not able to obtain a degree before he retired, unlike younger workers who would be able to do so. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that there was discrimination directed against those without a law degree who were within the 60-65 age bracket. The Tribunal considered the issue of justification but concluded that although the employers were seeking to achieve a legitimate objective, namely the recruitment and retention of staff of an appropriate quality, nonetheless the imposition of this criterion was not a proportionate means of achieving it.
The EAT held that there was no discrimination. The claimant had suffered no particular disadvantage as a result of his age. He was treated in precisely the same way as everyone else. It was true that he could not materially benefit from any law degree he might obtain, but that was because his working life was limited. Any improvement in terms which an employer gives will benefit older workers for a shorter period than younger ones. Any disadvantage can properly be described as the consequence of age, but it is not the consequence of age discrimination.
However, had the claimant been able to establish the requisite group disadvantage, the EAT would have upheld the finding that any age discrimination was not justified.
Judges:
Elias P J
Citations:
[2008] UKEAT 0191 – 08 – 2710, [2009] ICR 223, [2009] IRLR 262
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police CA 27-Apr-2010
The claimant alleged indirect age discrimination, in not having received a promotion to a post of legal adviser to the defendant. He did not have a law degree and did not want to undertake the study required which would have him acquiring the degree . .
At EAT – 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. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 19 July 2022; Ref: scu.277182
