14 July 2008
In its first intervention in an age discrimination appeal at the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) the Commission will argue that compulsory retirement can only be justified with very good reasons and that ageist assumptions must be avoided.
The Commission’s arguments will be put as part of an age discrimination appeal starting today (14 July) involving Mr Leslie Seldon, a former senior partner in a Kent law firm, who wanted a post-retirement role despite the firm's rule of compulsory retirement at 65.
Mr Seldon brought an unsuccessful age discrimination case against Clarkson, Wright and Jakes after his proposal was rejected.
However, he won £30,000 for victimisation as the firm withdrew the offer of an ex gratia payment when he threatened them with legal action.
The EAT will need to decide if the Employment Tribunal made the correct decision and whether the firm’s policy could be properly justified. It will argue that age discrimination can only be justified where ‘very weighty reasons’ are given and that it is discriminatory to accept ‘unevidenced assumptions’ to justify mandatory policies, such as thinking that as partners in a firm get older their performance declines.
John Wadham, the Commission's Group Legal Director said: ‘People are living longer, healthier lives, and age-related stereotypes about what people can and cannot do beyond 65 simply represents old fashioned thinking.
‘Age discrimination law is new, and the types of arguments employers can successfully put forward to justify mandatory retirement policies need to be tested, as this area of law is developed. People should be able to live full and fruitful lives defined by their capabilities and desires, not their age. That is why the Commission is so keen to assist the Employment Appeal Tribunal in this first age discrimination appeal and ensure tribunals take an appropriate view when looking at how employers seek to justify their stance. Putting forward arguments based on ageist assumptions are no basis upon which to make decisions.'
ENDS
For more information contact the Equality and Human Rights Commission Media Office on 02031170255, out of hours 07767272818.
Notes to editors
- Mr Seldon is being represented by BP Collins Solicitors.
• The Commission is intervening by way of written submissions.
• The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 make it unlawful on the grounds of age to:
Discriminate directly against anyone - that is to treat them less favourably than others because of their age – unless objectively justified
Discriminate indirectly against anyone – that is, to apply a criterion, provision or practice which disadvantages people of a particular age unless it can be objectively justified
Subject someone to harassment.
Victimise someone because they have made or intend to make a complaint or allegation or have given or intend to give evidence in relation to a complaint of discrimination on grounds of age
- The EAT may also consider whether the Heyday challenge is relevant to this case and whether they wish to adjourn it pending its outcome in Europe. This is because the appropriate test for justification is also central to the Heydey case. This Heydey challenge is a precedent-setting case being considered by the European Court of Justice that will determine the legality of the UK's mandatory retirement age for employees, which the challengers, backed by Age Concern, claim is in breach of the EU’s Equal Treatment Directive.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission is a statutory body established under the Equality Act 2006, which took over the responsibilities of Commission for Racial Equality, Disability Rights Commission and Equal Opportunities Commission.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission is the independent advocate for equality and human rights in Britain. It aims to reduce inequality, eliminate discrimination, strengthen good relations between people, and promote and protect human rights.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission enforces equality legislation on age, disability, gender, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation or transgender status, and encourage compliance with the Human Rights Act. It also gives advice and guidance to businesses, the voluntary and public sectors, and to individuals.