Analysis of key international cases – agediscrimination.info

The Anti-Discrimination Tribunal of Queensland upheld complaints by eight woman over the age of 35 that they had suffered age discrimination when they applied for, but were refused, employment by Virgin Blue Airlines.

Click here for a fuller report on this case.

Spanish retirement challenge

The UK is not the only European country to spark controversy over compulsory retirement ages. Spain is facing a challenge in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over retirement laws.

The law in question allows collective agreements to include clauses for compulsory retirement. These clauses are lawful where the only conditions for compulsory retirement are that the employee has reached normal retirement age and fulfils social security requirements for entitlement to draw a pension.

The Spanish Court has referred the issue to the ECJ asking the following questions:

• Does the principle of equal treatment relating to age, set out in the EC Treaty and the Framework Directive, prohibit such a law?
• If the law is prohibited, does this require the Spanish Court to disapply the provision of the law which makes the compulsory retirement clauses lawful?

The case was lodged with the ECJ in November 2005, but no decision has yet been published. If the ECJ rules that the Spanish law contravenes the Directive, this could have significant consequences for the UK’s default retirement age.

Félix Palacios de la Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA, José María Sanz Coral and Martin Tebar Less (ECJ C-411/05)

Unsuccessful challenge to Canadian mandatory retirement laws

Two university employees were made to retire at age 65 under a mandatory retirement policy. They claimed that the policy was discriminatory on the grounds of age and therefore unlawful under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights.

Their claim was rejected on the basis that the Charter, which is part of the Canadian constitution, only applies to government laws and actions, not to agreements between private individuals. It was found not to apply to the employer’s mandatory retirement policy, since that was a private matter.

As the Charter is part of the constitution, all other Canadian laws must be consistent with it. The employees in this case also argued that the Human Rights Act, which limits employment related age discrimination claims to those aged between 45 and 65, was contrary to the Charter. This claim was also unsuccessful (after appeal), on the basis that although the provision in the Human Rights Act does discriminate on the grounds of age that discrimination is justified under section 1 of the Charter.

Connell & Harrison v The University of British Columbia [1990]. Click here for a link to the judgment.