Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

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

It’s not every week that you get two discrimination-related judgments from the Supreme Court but that’s what we’ve got this week with the handing down of the judgments in Homer v West Yorkshire Police and Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes This is a case concerning direct age discrimination and, specifically, the justifications that can be used for direct age discrimination.

The facts in Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (a Partnership)

Mr Seldon (“the Appellant”) commenced working for the Clarkson Wright and Jakes (“the Respondent”) in 1971 and was made an equity partner in 1972. The partnership agreement that Mr Seldon signed in 2005 stipulated that, similar to the previous partnership agreements, partners whom attained the age of 65 whilst working for the firm would retire the following December. Mr Seldon did in fact reach the age of 65 in 2006 but realised that he would have to keep working because of his various commitments.  The partners disagreed with this and offered Mr Seldon a £30,000 ex gratia payment. Mr Seldon did not believe that this was sufficient and notified the partners that he was considering litigating under the (as they were then) Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, now replaced by the Equality Age 2010. The partners subsequently withdrew their offer of the ex gratia payment. Mr Seldon proceeded to submit claims of direct age discrimination and victimisation in March 2007.

Mr Seldon failed at the Employment Tribunal as the Employment Tribunal believed that the difference in treatment had been justified by particular aims (giving associates an opportunity of partnership, facilitating workforce planning, and limiting the need to expel underperforming partners). Mr Seldon therefore appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal which remitted the case on one point (namely whether another age than 65 could have been used). The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Seldon’s appeal and he appealed to the Supreme Court on the following grounds:

  1. The tests for direct and indirect age discrimination justification should not be fused
  2. The treatment afforded should not be justified generally but in relation to Mr Seldon’s situation

The law relating to direct age discrimination

Under Regulation 17 of the Age Regulations (now under the Equality Act 2010) an employer (including partnerships) are prohibited from treating an employee less favourably than other employees because of their protected characteristic (in this case age). In this case it was accepted that the treatment afforded to Mr Seldon was direct age discrimination – it was treatment directly related to his age (his being forced to retire at the age of 65). The interesting element in Seldon was the Supreme Court’s elaboration on the justification for direct age discrimination (direct age discrimination is the only incident of direct discrimination that is possible to be justified).

Direct age discrimination could be justified under the Age Regulations if the difference in treatment on the grounds of age is:

  1. Objectively and reasonably justified
  2. Consistent with the social policy aims of the state; and
  3. Appropriate to the aim and reasonably necessary to achieve it

The Supreme Court’s decision in Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (a Partnership)

The Supreme Court rejected Mr Seldon’s appeal and remitted the case to the Employment Tribunal on the issue specified above (whether an age other than 65 could have been used). The Supreme Court considered that the original Employment Tribunal had sufficiently distinguished between the justifications for direct and indirect discrimination. Further, the use of a general rule instead of using Mr Seldon’s particular circumstances was also justified.

Our specialist employment lawyers’ thoughts on Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (a Partnership)

This case demonstrates that claims for direct (and indirect) age discrimination can often be difficult to pursue. In particular, a claim for direct age discrimination can be defeated by the employer showing that there was a justification for the treatment afforded (although in many cases the employer won’t be able to credibly demonstrate that its treatment was reasonable and objective).

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

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

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

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

    Your first name (required)

    Your last name (required)

    Your email (required)

    Your telephone number (required)

    Brief details of your enquiry

    Testimonials

    4.80 Average

    292 Reviews

    Anonymous

    Exceeded my expectations. Very professional and proactive. I highly recommend them.

    Posted 1 week ago

    Anonymous

    The service provided to me by Redmans Solicitors was excellent and I would have no hesitation in recommending Chris. While I cannot get into the detail of the matter, it was very emotionally difficult for me and Chris was sensitive throughout and was clear that his motivation was arriving at a solution that helped me while I am unwell - and less about his own fee. His emotional intelligence was coupled with a very sharp and quick understanding of the complex facts of the matter and the legal arguments and he quickly formed a strong case working with me the whole way. Chris was particularly patient with me at what I found a stressful time, and I want to thank him personally for everything he did.

    Posted 1 week ago

    Anonymous

    A lovely, friendly and professional service. They advised me through my employment change. They where very responsive, keeping me updated and explaining everything in layman’s terms. No hidden charges. I would highly recommend them.

    Posted 2 weeks ago

    Philip H

    I was advised well and had a good experience using Redmans Solicitors.

    Posted 2 weeks ago

    Line v

    Good service and very helpful, informative

    Posted 2 weeks ago

    Katarzyna Z

    Very prompt replies, good rates and competent staff.

    Posted 2 weeks ago

    Sudhir S

    Professional in approach and give good advice all the time during my settlement agreement with the Company. Fee wise slightly expensive compare to the initial estimates.

    Posted 2 weeks ago

    Aaron H

    Very grateful to Mel who was brilliant kept me informed and was really helpful when I needed her

    Posted 2 weeks ago

    Alexia P

    The team at Redmans we're always professional and helpful throughout my case. The team were open to listening to me, understanding my situation and being clear about what they can support with.

    Posted 2 weeks ago

    Emma L

    So glad I chose Redmans to assist with my emplyment issue. From start to finish I received excellent service. Mel Chin had calm, methodical approach and she got me a far better result than I could have done on my own. Would not hesitate recommend far and wide.

    Posted 3 weeks ago

    Sam T

    I was extremely impressed with the support and advice that I received. The solicitors I worked with acted very quickly and were clear in their communications at every stage.

    Posted 3 weeks ago

    Anonymous

    I cannot thank Caroline enough for her empathetic help, advice and guidance in what was at times a very stressful situation. Always professional and available to answer any queries I had, I highly recommend Caroline and all the team at Redmans.

    Posted 3 weeks ago

    Robert M

    Chris Hadrill provided me with very efficient turn around of an employment offer from a US-based company. Chris reviewed the contract, identified key issues and offered sound/pragmatic advice and suggestions for improvement which I could then bring in non-legalese to my prospective employer. Employer accepted all the important changes Chris suggested and I accepted the job!! Very satisfied with the service.

    Posted 3 weeks ago

    Karen R

    Prompt, helpful and excellent service. Very professional and super quick. Very reasonable price for London. Definitely recommend and would use again.

    Posted 3 weeks ago

    Anonymous

    Excellent service from Redmans, I would not hesitate to recommend this firm of solicitors. Thank you very much to the team, and especially Chris and Mel!

    Posted 4 weeks ago

    Siriana B

    Thorough, efficient, and always available to answer my queries. It was a pleasure to deal with.Thanks

    Posted 1 month ago

    Anonymous

    Excellent speedy service

    Posted 1 month ago

    Robert

    Excellent service, very professional. would definitely use again.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Mary B

    I was very happy with the work Chris did for me. I believe with his help I secured a more favourable outcome both financially and in terms of clauses contained in the legal agreement I ultimately signed. I had utmost trust and confidence in the advice Chris provided throughout. Chris kept me informed at every stage and I found him very efficient at bringing matters to a conclusion without unnecessary delay.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Mark M

    I found Redmans very easy to work with. Mel was very responsive, her advice led to an improved settlement. . Recommended.!

    Posted 1 month ago

    Anonymous

    Fantastic service. I would recommend Redmans to anyone who needed a Solicitor. The communication was second to none and consistent clear guidance was given.

    Posted 1 month ago