Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

This case, heard in the Supreme Court, concerned the scope of indirect age discrimination.

The facts in Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

Mr Homer (“the Appellant”) commenced employment with the West Yorkshire Police (“the Respondent”) in 1995 as a legal adviser. He did not possess a law degree at this time but was exempted because of his extensive experience relating to criminal law. Over time the Respondent had difficulty in attracting the right candidates and restructured its grading hierarchy into 3 tiers. The first two tiers did not need a law degree but the highest third tier did. At the time of the restructuring in 2006 Mr Homer was only 3 years away from retirement and to gain a law degree he would have had to study for 4 years part-time. He therefore submitted a claim for indirect age discrimination under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (subsequently repealed and replaced by the Equality Act 2010).

The Employment Tribunal in 2008 found that the Appellant had been indirectly discriminated against on the grounds of age and that this discrimination was not objectively justifiable on the facts. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that there had in fact been no indirect discrimination but that it if there had been indirect discrimination it would not have been possible to objectively justify it. The Court of Appeal found that there had been no indirect discrimination and upheld the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s view on justification. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court.

The law relating to indirect age discrimination

Under the s.19 of the Equality Act 2010 indirect discrimination occurs if A (the employer) applies to B (the employee or worker) a provision, criterion or practice which puts B at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons who do not share B’s protected characteristic (in this case age), does put B at that disadvantage, and cannot be demonstrated to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

A provision is a requirement or condition (such as the condition that Mr Homer gain a law degree before he could reach the third tier). A criterion is a test, principle, rule or standard which is applied and a practice is less formal and conventional than the previous two tests.

An example of indirect age discrimination would be the refusal to employ a person with young children (as more married than unmarried persons would be affected) or that part-timers should be dismissed first in a redundancy.

Indirect age discrimination can be justified if the treatment was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

The Supreme Court upheld the Appellant’s appeal and stated that the requirement that Mr Homer obtain a law degree was indirectly discriminatory to people of a certain age. Whereas the lower courts had stated that the requirement was not discriminatory on the grounds of age because Mr Homer intended to retire (and his retirement was therefore the issue) the Supreme Court rejected this line of argument, stating that it was in fact his age and that age was inextricably bound up with matters relating to retirement. The Supreme Court remitted the case to the Employment Tribunal for a decision on whether the indirect discrimination can be objectively justified.

Our specialist employment lawyers’ thoughts on Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

Any Supreme Court case is an interesting one and this is no exception. However, there is no “stand out” ratio from this case apart from the fact that discrimination on the ground of retirement generally will be deemed to be discrimination on the grounds of age.

About Chris Hadrill

Chris is a specialist employment lawyer at Redmans. He specialises in contentious and non-contentious employment matters, including breach of contract claims, compromise agreements and Employment Tribunal cases. He writes on employment law matters on a variety of websites, including Direct 2 Lawyers, Lawontheweb.co.uk, LegalVoice, the Justice Gap and his own blog.

Contact Chris by emailing him at chadrill@redmans.co.uk

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.52 Average

21 Reviews

Redman's provided excellent legal employment advice for me during a difficult time in my employment. Chris was my lawyer, super efficient, quick, reliable and clearly very experienced in the matter. Could not ask for a better law firm to deal with your query if you are in need of some help. Would definitely use them again in the future. Highly recommending Chris.

Posted 1 month ago

Steven

Chris Hadrill was very professional and responsive. I would highly recommend him

Posted 1 month ago

Dinah

Very Efficient, with very quick email reply’s. I had a matter that needed resolving within a very short space of time and Redmans Solicitors were great with dealing with my matter quickly.

Posted 1 month ago

Ankar

At Redmans the solicitor that was dealing with me was Chris. He dealt with my situation smoothly with clear guidance and explanation

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Clear, concise advice and guidance delivered by an experienced and very capable solicitor, within the timelines required

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Very efficient service. I never had to wIt for more than a day for a reply to any of my queries and the matter was dealt with swiftly.

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Very timely, thorough and helpful advice. Friendly and considerate of the needs of the client

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Very prompt and attention to detail. Thank you for the service

Posted 2 months ago

Chris

Couldn’t be happier with how Redmans successfully handled our seemingly tricky case. By being clear and detailed every step of the way, with the utmost professionalism and courtesy, they made it an informative and eye-opening process, taking the stress out of the situation and ultimately delivered what you would want from such a service. I fully appreciate everything they have done, and if I am ever in need of such services in the future, they will be the first number I contact. Excellent.

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Excellent work delivered with great quality

Posted 2 months ago

Dominic

Chris Hadrill was a great help both in terms of his advice and his expertise. He explained my options to me clearly and concisely enabling me to quickly make the right decision for me in the circumstance. I would not hesitate to recommend Chris or Redmans to friends or colleagues, and would certainly make Redmans my first port of call should I require a similar service in the future.

Posted 2 months ago

Kurt

Redmans gave excellent advice and helped me understand everything in clear concepts. Thank you!

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Resolved my issues

Posted 2 months ago

Keith

Quick fast professional service.

Posted 2 months ago

Michael

"Prompt, efficient and practical advice that resulted in me getting some additional money tax free."

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Patient and thorough advice given to me around my Settlement Agreement

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

"Excellent service, getting back to you promptly giving you very good advice."

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

I found Chris Hadrill to be an excellent help, he is very knowledgeable and gives good ,concise ,strategic advice .He makes himself readily accessible when you need him.I would personally highly recommend him.

Posted 2 months ago

Christine

Professional, efficient and reliable service provided. I strongly recommend them and I would use this service again.

Posted 2 months ago