LATEST AGE DISCRIMINATION CASES — age discrimination
Viewing entries tagged
Recruitment
A man did not suffer age discrimination when his application to be a Criminal Investigator was rejected.
Comment
A serial litigant was rejected from an assessment centre due to his “abrasive” attitude and not because of his age. He was ordered to pay the employer’s full legal costs.
1 Comment
The burden of proof did not shift in this case involving a 58 year old security worker.
Comment
A job advert that said a pub was looking for staff “between the ages of 18 and 25” was both direct AND indirect age discrimination.
Comment
An advertisement aimed at candidates looking to join “our young and energetic team” was not direct age discrimination.
Comment
There was no direct age discrimination in a local authority’s decision not to promote a 60-year-old employee to a project manager role after interview, despite her having better qualifications and more experience than the successful candidate.
Comment
It was not indirect age discrimination to use an internal Talent Pool when deciding who to recruit. Even if it were age discrimination, it would have been justified.
Comment
There was no age discrimination after a 58-year-old was rejected following a group exercise at an assessment day.
Comment
An Employment Tribunal has found that an applicant for a park attendant role was directly discriminated against because of their age. It is a reminder of the benefit of prepared and scripted interviews, and the dangers of unscripted ones.
Comment
The ECJ has ruled that a police force was justified in setting an age limit of 35 years old for new recruits.
Comment
An Employment Tribunal erred when it held a PhD requirement put applicants for a lecture position at a particular disadvantage
The ECJ rules that an age limit of 30 for recruits as local police officers in Spain was unjustified age discrimination.
Mr Homer wins his age discrimination claim (finally).
A job applicant passed three interview stages, but then had her offer of employment withdrawn after poor psychometric testing results. She failed in her age discrimination claim.
The Supreme Court held that an employer was guilty of indirect age discrimination by making attainment of a higher pay grade dependent on having a law degree.
Finding of age discrimination made on basis that witness had lied and that in those circumstances the employer could not, apparently as a matter of law, satisfy the law on the burden of proof.
Mrs Harper wins nearly £150,000 in age discrimination claim.
A 51-year-old female TV presenter suffered unjustified age discrimination when her programme was moved to a ‘primetime’ slot and she was replaced by younger presenters.
The EAT rules against a serial claimant who brought multiple age discrimination claims against employers seeking “school leavers” and “recent graduates”. Someone is not discriminated against if they do not even apply for a job.
The Court of Appeal has upheld an earlier decision of the EAT that a requirement for a candidate for a job to have a degree was not age discriminatory