UK: Age Discrimination Two Years On

Last Updated: 9 January 2009
Article by Julia Hurren

Age discrimination has now been a part of UK employment law for two years, with the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations (Regulations) coming into force on 1 October 2006.

2007 did not see the influx in claims expected, despite a recent survey carried out by the Age and Employment Network finding that nearly all jobseekers over the age of 50 experience age discrimination. Over the last year there has been a threefold increase in the number of age discrimination claims and there is now a range of judicial guidance on what constitutes discriminatory conduct. The common theme emerging from the cases is the need for employers to clearly define their legitimate aims and demonstrate that their PCP's (provision, criteria or practices) are a proportionate means of achieving those aims.

Age discrimination: What is protected?

The Regulations are designed to implement the age related provisions of the European Equal Treatment Framework Directive (the Directive). The Directive prohibits discrimination on the grounds of age and the Regulations essentially make it unlawful to discriminate against an employee on the grounds of age throughout the entire employment process from recruitment to termination. Age discrimination applies to all age groups and includes:

  • Direct discrimination: where an employee can show that they have been treated less favourably than an employee of a different age on the grounds of their age.
  • Indirect discrimination: where an employee can show the employer has applied a provision, criteria or practice that puts them (and people within their age group) at a disadvantage compared to employees of a different age group.
  • Harassment: where a person is subject to unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of violating their dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.
  • Victimisation: where an employee is treated less favourably as a result of doing a protected act, which includes bringing proceedings or giving evidence in proceedings under the Regulations.

There are however, exceptions to these provisions. Unlike any other UK anti-discrimination legislation, direct age discrimination is capable of being justified. In the UK, potential discrimination can be objectively justified if an employer can demonstrate the discriminatory provision, criteria or practice is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

These exceptions have been the focus of recent cases, at both a European and national level.


Advertising based on age unjustified: Rainbow v Milton Keynes Council

The Tribunal recently found that advertising, based on length of experience, can constitute unjustified indirect discrimination.

Ms Rainbow, aged 61, was employed as a part time teacher. Her employer advertised internally and externally for a full time teaching post, stating "it would suit candidates in the first five years of their career".

Ms Rainbow applied for the position. She had 34 years teaching experience and was on a higher pay scale than the outgoing employee. Ms Rainbow was not shortlisted, despite having experience teaching the relevant year group. The successful candidate had approximately four years' teaching experience and was on a salary approximately Ł7,000 less than the full-time equivalent for Ms Rainbow.

Mrs Rainbow claimed both direct and indirect age discrimination. The Council admitted that cost had played a part in its decision arguing it was justified and that the school's financial constraints should be taken into account.

The Tribunal concluded that there was unjustified indirect discrimination on the facts. The provision, criteria or practice of employing candidates in the first five years of their career, although applied to all candidates could put people of Mrs Rainbow's age (who were likely to have more experience) at a disadvantage.

The Tribunal found that a decision based on financial reasons could be a legitimate aim. In these circumstances, however, the Tribunal found that the employer had failed to demonstrate that cost considerations were objectively justified. The Tribunal set a high threshold for cost being a justification and explained that before financial constraints can justify discrimination the employer must be more or less compelled to discriminate.

Requirement to have qualifications justified: West Yorkshire Police v Homer

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) recently found that a requirement to hold a law degree did not amount to indirect discrimination, overturning the Employment Tribunal decision.

Mr Homer, aged 61, worked as a legal advisor for the Police National Legal Database. During his employment, the West Yorkshire Police established a new career structure which meant that to move to the top band of the new career structure (and obtain a higher salary) employees were required to hold a law degree.

Mr Homer did not hold a law degree. When he commenced employment, to qualify as a legal advisor he had to:

  • Hold a law degree;
  • Hold the equivalent of a law degree; or
  • Have exceptional experience/skills in criminal law, combined with a lesser qualification in law.

Mr Homer met the third requirement. However, following the review and implementation of the new structure, Mr Homer was not able to reach the top grade. Mr Homer claimed age discrimination on the basis that at 61 he could not re train to obtain a law degree before his retirement at 65 and was therefore disadvantaged. Mr Homer did not allege indirect discrimination on the basis that younger people were more likely to have higher education and therefore would have been more likely to hold a law degree which may have had a different result.

The Employment Tribunal found there was unjustified indirect age discrimination and the requirement to hold a law degree placed employees between 60 and 65 at a disadvantage.

The EAT overturned this decision and found there was no age discrimination:

  • There was no particular disadvantage for employees aged 60 to 65.
  • All employees, irrespective of age were treated the same. All employees were required to hold a law degree and it was not something required only for those over a certain age.
  • In principle, it is no more difficult for an older employee to obtain a law degree than a younger employee.
  • Any improvement an employer gives will benefit older workers for a shorter period than younger workers. That in itself does not amount to age discrimination.
  • Any disadvantage to Mr Homer was an inevitable consequence of age, but it is not age discrimination.

The EAT did however comment that had it found there was discrimination, it could not be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate business aim.

Attempt to avoid enhanced pension unjustified: Wooster v LB of Tower Hamlets

Mr Wooster, 49, was employed by the housing department of Tower Hamlets. In 2001, his role was deleted and he was given a temporary secondment to a social landlord with the intention to find him a permanent role. No permanent position was found, and Mr Wooster was given notice of redundancy.

The social landlord still had secondment work available and offered to retain Mr Wooster until July 2007. This would have taken him past his 50th birthday, allowing him to retire with a pension from the council together with a lump sum. The Council declined the offer and stated "if you are going to pay his salary you can pay his bloody pension when he is 50".

Mr Wooster claimed age discrimination and the Tribunal found there was direct discrimination on the basis someone who was not 49 would have been treated differently if there was no objective justification for doing so on the facts.


The Heyday Opinion

The legality of the retirement age of 65 is currently under review as a result of a challenge brought by the National Council on Ageing (also known as Heyday) to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The retirement provisions take the objective justification defence further and provide a defence to age discrimination if the employer requires an employee to retire upon reaching 65 and the statutory retirement procedures are followed. This means, employers do not need to demonstrate that retiring an employee at 65 is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Heyday argued that this aspect of the Regulations is incompatible with the criteria in the Directive justifying age discrimination. The Directive permits difference in treatment on the grounds of age if it is "objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, including legitimate employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives and if the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary".

The Advocate General has rejected Heyday's challenge and confirmed the Directive does permit national states to objectively justify their retirement age. The Advocate General's key recommendations are:

  • National law can include a justification defence and member states do not need to list the types of treatment that may be justified. This essentially means that whether a PCP can be objectively justified will depend on the circumstances of the individual case.
  • The retirement age is compatible with the Directive, provided it can be objectively justified. It is up to the UK courts to assess whether the objective justification test is met here.

The challenge now needs to be decided by the ECJ and it is likely the ECJ will follow the Advocate General's opinion. If it does the UK courts will then have the opportunity to consider whether the default age can be justified and the UK government will need to demonstrate why a national retirement age is necessary in terms of social and employment policy.

Retirement provisions: how do they apply to individuals who are not employees?

The default retirement age of 65 does not apply to office holders or partners and the Tribunal has recently considered the position of retirement of non employees. Essentially, to avoid a claim of age discrimination when retiring someone who is not an employee the employer is required to demonstrate that the retirement is objectively justified.

Two recent examples of the Tribunal considering such circumstances and coming to different conclusions are the decisions of Hampton v Ministry of Justice and Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes. The Employment Appeal Tribunal has reviewed the decision in Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes and issued its decision in December 2008. The case has been referred back to the Tribunal, leaving the question open.

Retirement not justified: Hampton v Ministry of Justice

Mr Hampton was a recorder (an office holder) with the Ministry of Justice and the default retirement age did not apply to him. When Mr Hampton reached 65, the Ministry of Justice had to demonstrate that his retirement was objectively justified to avoid a claim of age discrimination. The Ministry argued that the retirement was objectively justified on the basis that they needed to create vacancies for new blood and give younger recorders more experience.

The Tribunal rejected these arguments and found that in these circumstances, the suggested approach was neither proportionate, nor did it inevitably identify a legitimate aim, because:

  • Vacancies could be created by other methods, for example, recorders moving to become judges or Recorders could be removed for not sitting a minimum number of days;
  • The requirement for new blood conflicted with the Ministries' plan to reduce the number of recorders by 10% over 15 years; and
  • Younger recorders could gain more experience by rearranging the listing arrangements for cases.

Retirement justified?: Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes

Mr Seldon was a partner in a law firm and was compulsorily retired when he reached 65 in accordance with the terms of the partnership deed. The partnership deed also permitted partners to stay on past 65 with agreement of the partners. Mr Seldon offered to continue and perform consultancy work following his retirement. The firm declined the offer. . Mr Seldon indicated he intended to raise an age discrimination claim. The firm proceeded to compulsorily retire Mr Seldon in accordance with the partnership deed.

The Tribunal concluded the retirement provisions were justified for the following reasons:

  • To ensure associates were given the opportunity for partnership and in turn ensure staff retention.
  • To facilitate planning of the partnership and workforce having a realistic long term expectation of when vacancies will arise; and
  • Limiting the need to expel partners for poor management thus contributing to the congenial and supportive culture of the firm. In this respect, the Tribunal accepted that partners over 65 would not make the same performance contribution younger partners.

The EAT heard submissions from the parties, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and concluded the Tribunal was entitled to find that the principle of compulsory retirement was justified. The EAT accepted that the first two first two objectives and the objective of achieving collegiality were justified. However, the EAT found the partnership had not established they were justified in fixing that age at 65 on the basis that performance would drop off at 65. There was no evidential basis for this assumption and the EAT did not accept this was reasonable or self evident. On this basis, the EAT was unsure what conclusion the Tribunal would have reached if it had only considered the first two objectives and remitted the case to the Tribunal for reconsideration.


The key message is the importance of forethought to indentify the relevant legitimate aim and to test whether the approach is proportionate. This requires employers to turn their minds to why a certain practice is being implemented before doing so. Tribunals are focusing closely on the issue of proportionality; they are testing whether in fact there is evidence to demonstrate that the employers approach is genuinely no more discriminatory that is necessary and that there were no alternatives to the employer's decision. Employers need to ask questions and have answers: Why do we need this? What are we trying to achieve? Can we do this differently to achieve the same result? If not, why not? Employers who do so will be in a much stronger position to justify their actions, and defend potential age discrimination claims.

Julia Hurren
Dundas & Wilson CS LLP

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.