header-logo header-logo

Costly benefits

14 August 2008 / Rachael Healey , Simon Henthorn
Issue: 7334 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Are employers finding it too expensive to employ and insure older workers? Simon Henthorn & Rachael Healey

Age discrimination has received recent publicity with the Heyday challenge taking the stage in the European Court of Justice. However, the legislation creates other problems for employers. This article deals with the issue of provision of insurance benefits to older employees, particularly permanent health insurance (PHI) and private medical insurance.

The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1031) (the Regulations) came into force on 1 October 2006, implementing the Framework Directive 2000/78/EC (the Directive). The Regulations provide that in employment and vocational training, it is unlawful to discriminate against workers on the grounds of age. Direct and indirect discrimination, victimisation, instructions to discriminate and harassment are all prohibited. The law covers workers of any age so both the young and old can claim protection.

Direct discrimination is less favourable treatment of a worker on the grounds of their age or apparent age—for instance a refusal to provide PHI cover only to workers over the age of

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll