News

Age Discrimination justified in Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes

  • May 01, 2012
  • By Hunters Law

On 25th April 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that a law firm had successfully identified legitimate aims which could potentially justify a compulsory retirement age. The legitimate aims identified by the law firm and upheld by the Supreme Court include:

On 25th April 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that a law firm had successfully identified legitimate aims which could potentially justify a compulsory retirement age.  The legitimate aims identified by the law firm and upheld by the Supreme Court include:

1.   the retention of associates by providing them with the opportunity of partnership after a reasonable period of time;

2.   the facilitation of partnership and workforce planning with realistic expectations as to when vacancies would arise; and

3.   the furtherance of a congenial and supportive workplace by minimizing the expulsion of partners through performance management.

The Supreme Court found that the direct age discrimination suffered by Mr Seldon could be potentially justified by these social policy objectives.

The case has been returned to the Employment Tribunal for it to determine whether the firm’s chosen retirement age of 65 is a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims set out above.

This case will have important ramifications for all employers following the abolition of the mandatory retirement age.

For further information, please contact Chloe Vernon

Related News

Jul 22, 2021
Gregor Kleinknecht and Constance Tait examine the impact on trademark litigation and provide 10 tips on navigating the post-Brexit era in Managing IP
Jul 16, 2021
Gregor Kleinknecht and Anastassia Dimmek examine the growing threat of zombie firms in Lawyer Monthly
Jul 07, 2021
Richard Baxter and Constance Tait examine a report suggesting that firms with targeted support for ethnic minority workers see benefits
Jun 28, 2021
Richard Baxter discusses UK-EU Data Protection and how adequacy decisions avoid imminent disruption to data flows
Jun 23, 2021
Richard Baxter and Constance Tait examine the recent Burnell v Trans-Tag Ltd case in the High Court
Jun 22, 2021
Anastassia Dimmek discussed the key challenges of protecting clients’ healthy businesses from zombie firms in a webinar hosted by Advoselect
Jun 18, 2021
Richard Baxter and Constance Tait discuss the looming annual returns deadline for employee share schemes
May 18, 2021
Hunters hosted the Withdrawal and The Trade Marks Act 1994 webinar
Mar 17, 2021
Stephen Morrall comments on Uber drivers entitled to minimum wage, holiday pay and pension following the Supreme Court decision in The Sunday Times Driving, The Times and the Daily Mail
Feb 19, 2021
Stephen Morrall comments on Uber losing a landmark Supreme Court battle in the Evening Standard and the Financial Times

© Hunters Law LLP 2021 | Privacy NoticeLegal & Regulatory | Cookies Policy | Complaints Procedure.

Hunters Law LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (number 657218)