Following the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Johns v Solent all tribunal claims challenging a compulsory retirement will be stayed pending the outcome of the ‘Heyday’ case.
This is the first reported age discrimination case dealing with the thorny issue of flexible benefits schemes.
Sharma v Millbrook Beds Ltd involved an employer whose attempts to reduce the risk of a claim backfired.
The youngest claimant, in Wilkinson v Springwell Engineering Ltd, was 18 when she was dismissed, ostensibly on grounds of her capability.
This decision is a cautionary tale for employers who have not eliminated age-related language and questions from their recruitment exercises.
This case involved a claimant dismissed for being "too old".
In relation to non-retirement dismissals, the decision in Hussain v Live Nation (Venues) Ltd illustrates the danger for an employer in seeking to play the ‘age card’.
A tribunal has ruled that a law firm did not unlawfully discriminate on age grounds when it reformed its partner pension scheme - even though the extent of partners’ losses depended on their 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 AG has given an opinion stating that the compulsory retirement age of 65 is potentially legal under EU law.
The European Court of Justice has decided that national laws on compulsory retirement at a particular age must be justified in order to be lawful.
A 61 year old teacher who was not shortlisted for a job advertised for candidates ‘in the first five years of their career’ was indirectly discriminated against on the grounds of her age.
This Scottish case was one of the first to be decided in relation to harassment on age grounds.
German survivor's pension claim rejected by the ECJ.
The old statutory retirement procedure which, if correctly followed, would protect an employer from unfair dismissal and/or age discrimination claims, only applies to employees.
An employee dismissed one day before his 65th birthday succeeded in his age discrimination claim.
The requirement for recent "hands on" experience was not age discriminatory.
Cleaner in a dentist is successful in her age discrimination claim.
In general, employers do not need specifically to justify using length of service to calculate pay, according to the ECJ in Cadman v Health and Safety Executive.