• SERVICE

England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

The Queen on the application of Age UK Vs. The Equality and Human Rights Commission

The legality of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 SI 1031/2006 is challenged as Regulation 3 that permits employers to justify direct discrimination on the grounds of age and Regulation 30 that provides that it does not constitute unlawful discrimination for an employer to dismiss an employee on the grounds of retirement at age 65, ultra vires the Directive. Whether the legitimate reasons for retiring an employee on the grounds of age could be established on a case by case basis in the light of the guidance given by Community law and alternatively, if a DRA was or is considered legitimate, is 65 too young an age for such a provision.

It is not for this court to identify when a particular age for a DRA is justified. Age 65 had some support from past practice in the United Kingdom and the preponderance of consultees and continuing practice elsewhere in the European Union; no one was making a case for age 68 or so and age 70 commanded little popular support in the consultations. An appropriate margin of discretion must be afforded to government in the selection of the age for a DRA and in monitoring the impact of a DRA of 65. Regulation 30 as adopted in 2006 wasn't beyond the competence of the government in applying the Directive or outside the discretionary area of judgment available in such matters. It is not ultra vires the Directive and is not void. The claim fails and the relief sought for cannot be granted.

• LABOUR AND INDUSTRIAL

Employment Appeal Tribunal

Eagle Place Services Ltd v Rudd 

The Claimant, disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, was removed by the Respondent by reason of his disability or for a reason connected with his disability. The Employment tribunal observed that Respondent believed the financial effect of the agreed adjustments made with the Claimant made a commercial liability. Whether the Respondent was rational in initiating the resignation / termination of such an employee?

An unreasonable and incorrect belief on the part of an employer that a particular employee might inhibit the firm's commercial objective would not constitute part of the employee's "relevant circumstances" within the meaning of Section 3A(5) of the Act. An employer who had agreed to reasonable adjustments could not then turn round and dismiss the employee because it unreasonably considered that those reasonable adjustments made him a commercial liability, on the basis that it have unreasonably considered a non-disabled employee in respect of whom similar adjustments had been made, to be a commercial liability. Where there was evidence from which an inference of discrimination might be drawn, and the Employment Tribunal rejected non-discriminatory explanations by the employer, it was proper for the Employment Tribunal draw the inference that the dismissal of the claimant was for a discriminatory reason.