E-mail this to a friend
Print this
Can age discrimination ever be justified? Asks Harriet Bowtell
Accountancy Age
15 November 2007
Age discrimination has now been unlawful in the UK for just over a year. Direct age discrimination means treating someone differently for unjustifiable reasons.
Ordinarily these are reasons that are not necessary for the aims of the business to be achieved. Employers and lawyers alike have been eagerly awaiting clarification from the courts as to what extent age discrimination can be 'justified' in practice.
It had been thought that the threshold for employers would be high and that any benefit schemes that linked benefits to a particular age would be severely criticised and found unlawful by the courts.
The long-awaited decision in the case of Blaxham v Freshfields, which considers exactly this point, was handed down earlier this month. Mr Blaxham, a former partner in Freshfields law firm, brought a claim against the firm based on the fact that, as a result of the firm's pension reforms if he retired at age 55 rather than age 54 (his age), he would receive 100% not 80% of his pension entitlement.
The tribunal concluded that Blaxham did suffer direct age discrimination. However, surprisingly, it accepted that such treatment was justified. The factors supporting the decision included the following:
- it was agreed by all that the firm could not sustain the current
pension arrangements and reform was essential; - the firm carried out a long consultation with all partners, including Blaxham;
- the firm considered the difficulties faced by all ages of partners and the transitional arrangements took account of these as much as possible;
- no other solutions were put forward Mr Blaxham.
Law firms and the Big Four, who may face similar issues, will, for the moment, be breathing a huge sigh of relief. However, they should not take too much comfort. The Blaxham decision is only a tribunal decision, hence not binding on other courts or tribunals.
While this decision may be persuasive, it may be limited to its particular facts and other tribunals may not give such a broad interpretation to direct justification particularly if an employer has not taken the steps above when implementing such a scheme.