An 18 year old who was fired for claiming minimum wage was fired.
A decision to dismiss a 49 year old three months before his 50th birthday in order to avoid additional pension costs was direct age discrimination.
This ECJ decision appears to suggest that costs alone will not be sufficient to justify discrimination.
The EAT upholds an ET decision that that an employer should consider a request to work beyond retirement “in good faith”.
A claimant lost an age discrimination claim which was based on the premise that the whole of the advertising industry is ageist.
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.
Mrs Harper wins nearly £150,000 in age discrimination claim.
The Pension Ombudsman rules that tapering of a lump sum payment under the Civil Service Compensation Scheme was in breach of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.
In this case, an ET decides that a legal adviser salary band was not indirectly age discriminatory.
A 51-year-old female TV presenter suffered unjustified age discrimination when her programme was moved to a ‘primetime’ slot and she was replaced by younger presenters.
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.
The ECJ rules that a default retirement provision in the Bulgarian Labour Code may be justified.
In this ongoing claim, the EAT has indicated that costs alone should be able to justify age discrimination.
A Danish law providing for severance payments for employees, but which excluded those who had attained pension age, constituted direct age discrimination.
The ECJ has held that a German law allowing compulsory retirement at 65 (state pension age) was justified age discrimination.
The Court of Appeal upheld an appeal.
In an interim hearing, an ET finds that the test in Regulation 32(2) of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 is a mix of objective and subjective tests.