An important Tribunal Judgment was handed down very recently in Ashford Tribunal. Mr Seldon, a solicitor, was compulsorily retired by his practice from the partnership in 2006 when he was 65. He brought an age discrimination claim. His case made headlines when it got to the Supreme Court.
The Judgment explained, clearly, the nature of the Justification Defence in direct age discrimination. As part of the Justification Defence legitimate aims can include a retirement to retain staff by providing an opportunity for them to be promoted to partnership and also a requirement to be able to plan based on assumptions of retirement.
Critical to the decision was therefore whether adopting an age of 65 was proportionate.
The Tribunal considered part of a 2003 DTI report on the effect of age on productivity and noted that except in a very limited range of jobs there is evidence to show work performance does not deteriorate with age, at least up to 70. Thereafter there is little available evidence. However, there are limitations to the evidence. It was not of great use to the Tribunal in dealing with professional partnerships.
The Tribunal found that in 2006, in this partnership, the age of 65 was proportionate. They considered that all parties had agreed 65 as the retirement age in the Partnership Deed. In 2006 the default retirement age for employees was 65 (although those provisions have now been abolished). Also at that time the state pension age was 65.
There was a narrow range of ages which the Tribunal found would have struck a balance between the partners in the business and senior employees wishing to become partners. 65 was within the range.
However the Tribunal specifically stated that "the position might be different if the relevant date has been after the abolition of the default retirement age and after the planned changes in the state pension age".
For advice on discrimination, the Equality Act or any aspect of Employment law please contact Holly Dobson at [email protected].
