header-logo header-logo

22 November 2007
Issue: 7298 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Age discrimination cases on hold

News

All cases relating to dismissal on grounds of retirement arising under reg 30 of the Employment (Equality) Age Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1031) are being stayed until the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rules on the legality of UK retirement law, the president of the Tribunals Service has announced.
Judge Meeran’s announcement follows the recent Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling in Johns v Solent SD Ltd, that the claim should be deferred pending the outcome of the Heyday case: R (on the application of Incorporated Trustees of the National Council on Aging) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (see this issue p 1651).

Heyday, Age Concern’s membership organisation, wants the ECJ to determine whether UK rules on age discrimination, allowing employers to retire staff forcibly at the age of 65, breach an EU Directive.
Rachel Dineley, head of the national diversity and discrimination unit at Beachcroft LLP, says the decision may come as an unwelcome surprise to employers.

“Only last month, the decision in the Palacios v Cortefiel Servicios SA case, which allowed Félix Palacios de la Villa’s employer to retire him at 65, brought relief for employers. The ECJ was of the view that the imposition of a retirement age in that case  was objectively justifiable, particularly as it was linked to the provision of a pension.” 

However, she says, the Tribunals Service’s decision muddies the retirement age waters once again. “It gives employees, who are unhappy at being required to retire at or after 65, fresh encouragement to commence proceedings against their employer, particularly as it will require little time and effort to lodge a claim, which will then be stayed until the 2009 Heyday decision. 

“This brings huge uncertainty for employers, whose action in retiring someone under reg 30 would previously have been expected to withstand scrutiny but could now be brought into question. The Heyday decision is a long way off; meanwhile, employers are left in difficulty when it comes to retirement, uncertain as to whether they will be accused of age discrimination.” 

Issue: 7298 / Categories: Legal News , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll