80 likes | 193 Views
Age discrimination in the courts: recent and forthcoming case law. Presentation by Michael Rubenstein Publisher, Equal Opportunities Review Editor, Industrial Relations Law Repo rts. Age limits for recruitment or retention (1 ).
E N D
Age discrimination in the courts: recent and forthcoming case law Presentation by Michael Rubenstein Publisher, Equal Opportunities Review Editor, Industrial Relations Law Reports
Age limits for recruitment or retention (1) - Radio 1 example: must “change to connect with a new generation” (see EOR 192, Strictly young) - Is trying to convey a youthful image justifiable? - To what extent does replacing older workers with younger involve ageist stereotyping?
Age limits for recruitment or retention (2) - Petersen (C-341/08): maximum age limit of 68 to practice as dentist in Germany AG Opinion: justifiable to provide opportunities for new generation – ie job blocking - Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes (CA judgment awaited): partner in law firm retired at 65. EAT accepted need to create promotion prospects was justification.
Age limits for recruitment or retention (3) • Wolf v Stadt Frankfurt (C-229/08): upper age of 30 for recruitment as firefighter AG Opinion: justified because firefighters will only work until 45/50 - Contrast Baker v NATS: ET holds age limit of 36 for recruitment as air traffic controller unlawfully discriminatory
Redundancy arrangements (1) - MacCulloch v ICI: contractual scheme with bands that were more age discriminatory than statutory scheme had to be justified - Loxley v BAE: exclusion of workers entitled to occupational pension from contractual redundancy scheme had to be justified
Redundancy arrangements (2) • Andersen: Is exclusion from redundancy payment of those in receipt of early retirement pension contrary to the Directive? • London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Wooster: EAT upholds finding that council made 49-year old employee redundant because it wanted to avoid early retirement costs at age 50.
Default retirement age: Age UK case • Administrative Court holds introducing DRA did not contravene Framework Directive • Met legitimate policy aim of “maintaining confidence in the labour market” • Expresses view that age 65 is no longer justified • Only realistic alternatives for HMG from 2011 are to raise DRA to 68 or 70, or scrap it altogether
Contact details Michael@Rubensteinpublishing.com