LATEST AGE DISCRIMINATION CASES — agediscrimination.info

The EAT says that it was not age discrimination to demote a poor performing partner in a law firm.

The ECJ says that a national court must disapply principles of national law that conflict with the general principle of EU law prohibiting age discrimination, and cannot prioritise principles of legal certainty or legitimate expectations instead.

Comment

The EAT has dismissed an appeal against an ET’s decision to strike out a direct age discrimination claim.

Comment

University criteria that restricted appointment to a post was justified indirect age discrimination.

Various references to an individual’s age during a process to dismiss him were age discrimination.

Did additional “pension strain cost” influence a decision not to make someone redundant?

Calling a 50-something year old employee “Gramps” was banter but was also age discrimination.

The EAT found an error in the ET’s reasoning when looking at justification, so remitted the case for rehearing.

The EAT overturns a decision that a teacher suffered unlawful indirect age discrimination.

This case involved a director denied the opportunity to apply for voluntary redundancy.

The ECJ rules that it was not discrimination to withhold a 10% termination payment to a “young person” but make that payment to older persons.

The ECJ has ruled on a German pay scheme where those over 35 years of age received greater pay compared to younger colleagues.

Two sisters were the victims of direct discrimination after they were treated less well than their older, male colleagues.

Army rules require longer service for those who join as minors. Is this age discrimination?

EAT says the ‘A19’ policy which forced police officers to retire was not age discrimination.

Can a company claim it has suffered age discrimination. The EAT says “yes”.

The Court of Appeal says that the mental processes of those who are not the decision maker should be considered.

An enhanced redundancy scheme that tapered down to zero at age 65 was not justified.

This case relates to the retirement age for cricket officials.

The EAT holds that a change to new terms after a TUPE transfer was a PCP.