A claimant lost an age discrimination claim which was based on the premise that the whole of the advertising industry is ageist.
Viewing entries in
EAT
This case concerned the statutory right to request to stay on beyond retirement age.
A retirement notice stating the employee would retire "after his 65th birthday" was not unlawful age discrimination.
The EAT looks at the recommendations of a tribunal and rules that they were not overly broad. The judgment is worth a read, particularly for the Tribunal's comments about the Lycee's argument that "being French" was justification for the discrimination.
Finding of age discrimination made on basis that witness had lied and that in those circumstances the employer could not, apparently as a matter of law, satisfy the law on the burden of proof.
The EAT rules against a serial claimant who brought multiple age discrimination claims against employers seeking "school leavers" and "recent graduates". Someone is not discriminated against if they do not even apply for a job.
In this ongoing claim, the EAT has indicated that costs alone should be able to justify age discrimination.
The EAT upheld an ET's decision that a 42-year-old banker had suffered unlawful age discrimination because of a bank's use of the word "younger".
Applying a cap to payments under a redundancy scheme to ensure that employees close to pension age do not receive a windfall can be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
A litigant bringing frivolous age discrimination claims has her appeal dismissed and costs awarded against her.
Barking and Dagenham Council loses appeal after 15 employees bring age discrimination claim.
A change from one policy to another policy cannot in itself be a provision, criterion or practice for the purposes of the Age Regulations.
A former Council employee is successful in possibly the highest value age discrimination claim to date
The EAT found that a manager's dismissal of an employee, based on a belief that the employee held ageist views, did not justify an inference that the employee had been dismissed by reason of his age.
This is a decision of the Scottish Division of the EAT concerning the construction of Regulation 24 of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.
The EAT rejects a law firm's claim that it is legitimate to retire partners at 65 as their performance declines at about that age.
A legal adviser, aged 61, ineligible for promotion unless he obtained a law degree was not discriminated against on the grounds of his age.
An age cut-off for redundancy payments can be justified if pension provision adequately cushions the impact of financial loss.
The EAT rules that ICI can potentially justify both age and service elements in their enhanced redundancy scheme.
The financial cost to a private employer of avoiding an indirectly discriminatory provision will not, on its own, be a good enough justification.