header-logo header-logo

19 July 2007
Issue: 7282 / Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Freshfields defends age discrimination claims

News

City law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer—which is currently defending an age discrimination claim at an employment tribunal—is reportedly facing another claim from another disgruntled former partner.

According to newspaper reports, Lois Moore, a mergers and acquisitions partner who left Freshfields last year, is also suing the firm for age discrimination over changes made to the firm’s pension scheme. Her case has been deferred by the tribunal pending the outcome of the current case, brought by Peter Bloxham.

Bloxham, former head of insolvency at Freshfields, alleges that changes made to the firm’s pension arrangements for retired partners amounted to direct and indirect discrimination against older partners. He claims he was forced to retire early and take a cut in his pension.
Freshfields has already paid £24m in severance payments to 25 former partners, but Bloxham is claiming a further £4.5m compensation under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, which came into force last October.

The employment tribunal was told that the reason Freshfields changed its pensions system—where current partners pay for retired partners’ pensions—was to alter the “size and shape” of the partnership by weeding out older partners.

Freshfields, however, says the pension reforms were a necessary compromise to fix an “extraordinarily difficult issue”.
Dinah Rose QC, who is acting as counsel for Freshfields, points out that several partners in a similar position to Bloxham voted in favour of the reforms.

Issue: 7282 / Categories: Legal News , Tribunals , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll