Compulsory Retirement Age Not Discriminatory

Compulsory Retirement Age Not Discriminatory In Seldon v Clarkson, Wright & Jakes [2010] IRLR 865 the Court of Appeal confirms that a firm of solicitors was justified in requiring one of its partners to retire at the age of 65 in accordance with the terms of its partnership deed. The case is to go to the Supreme Court. The facts of Seldon are quite well known: S, a solicitor and equity partner, challenged the partnership's decision to retire him at the age of 65 in accordance with the terms of its partnership deed. S complained of direct discrimination contrary to Regulation 3(1)(a) of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulation 2006. The firm succeeded in part in justifying its policy pursuant to Regulation 3(1) of the Age Regulations. In particular it relied on the need to ensure that associates were given the opportunity of partnership after a reasonable period, facilitating the planning of the partnership and workforce across individual departments by having a realistic long term expectation as to when vacancies would arise and, more controversially, that retirement at 65 fostered an atmosphere of congeniality in that it avoided the need to take steps to remove those who, at 65 or over, were underperforming. It is fair to say that the Court of Appeal was even more receptive to both of these arguments than the EAT had been. In giving its judgment the Court of Appeal ruled that in seeking to justify age discrimination, an employer is not restricted to the social policy aims which had led the Government to originally impose an upper age limit of 65 (now to be found in Schedule 9 paragraph 8 to the Equality Act 2010), although it was open (where appropriate)for an employers policy to mirror those aims. The Court therefore held that the aim of providing employment prospects for young persons by holding out good promotion prospects was a legitimate aim as was the more controversial aim of ensuring a collegiate culture...