Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 24 MAY 2010

Age Discrimination - Retirement Age Does Not Mean Age Discrimination

The Court of Appeal has considered the Employment Equality (Age) Discrimination Regulations 2006 for the first time in the case of "Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire".

United KingdomEmployment and HR
Bird & Bird'S Labour & Employment Group
Bird & Bird'S Labour & Employment Group

Originally published May 2010

The Court of Appeal has considered the Employment Equality (Age) Discrimination Regulations 2006 for the first time in the case of Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire.

The claimant, who was aged 61 and approaching retirement at 65, complained about the introduction of a requirement that employees obtain a law degree in order to be considered for promotion to a higher employment grade.  The claimant did not have a law degree and would not have time to obtain one before he retired. The Court of Appeal agreed with the EAT that this did not constitute age discrimination.

The EAT had said that the operation of the requirement against him was an inevitable consequence of age but not a consequence of age discrimination. The Court of Appeal accepted that both the loss of status and pay could strengthen a claim of age discrimination. However, in this case, although it might seem to be unfair to the claimant because he was close to

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from