Age Discrimination - May be Justifiable on Grounds of Cost Alone

Contributor

As you adapt and innovate, you'll need a firm that's hardwired to anticipate and uncover the opportunities in change.

You'll need a firm that will ask the right questions to shape the right objective. And you'll need proactive, practical, and commercially led advice on how to get there.

It's what we do and it's what makes us your go-to firm, whether you're facing disruption or creating it.

You can trust us to know your sector as well as you do, to be curious, and to connect the dots to reach solutions others don’t. And you can trust us to deliver as promised – and more.

We'll work closely with you and make things easier for you. We'll look to deliver new improved solutions and services. And we'll take on your problems as if they were our own. But more than that, we'll work as one seamless international team across our business and yours. Giving you access to a whole world of expertise.

Explore Firm Details

In "Woodcock v Cumbria Primary Care" the EAT considered the case of a claimant who had been given notice of redundancy prior to a scheduled formal consultation meeting.

United Kingdom Employment and HR

In Woodcock v Cumbria Primary Care the EAT considered the case of a claimant who had been given notice of redundancy prior to a scheduled formal consultation meeting. One of the reasons given for this by the employer was that it wanted the notice to expire (and thus the employment to terminate) before the claimants' 50th birthday, at which point he would have become entitled to extra benefits on redundancy.

He claimed that this was age discrimination. He argued that in a case of redundancy, consultation before notice was given was an absolute right and a failure to consult could not be justified. He also argued that the employer had purported to justify its actions on the basis of cost alone, and that this was not permissible.

The EAT agreed that the timing of the dismissal was age discrimination but, on the facts of this particular case, decided that the discrimination was justified. Following the re-organisation which had resulted in the claimant's post becoming redundant, he had been moved into a temporary role for some time and had already been given a far longer period of continued employment before notice of termination than he was legitimately entitled to expect. He had no legitimate expectation at the time the redundancy situation arose that his employment would continue beyond his 50th birthday. The employer's defence succeeded.

Point to Note –

The EAT confirmed that the leading case of Cross v BA says that, in such a case, the employer cannot rely solely on considerations of cost to justify age discrimination. There must be other justification and this was certainly the case here. However, the President of the EAT, in giving this judgment, also said that it seemed to him that an employer should be able to justify a measure producing a discriminatory impact simply on the basis that the cost of avoiding the impact, or rectifying it, would be disproportionately high.

www.twobirds.com

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.