Barlow v Gallagher Limited [2017] NIIT 00924_15IT (30 November 2017)

Barlow v Gallagher Limited [2017] NIIT 00924_15IT (30 November 2017)

The exclusion of employees over 65 from the enhanced redundancy scheme constituted both direct and indirect age discrimination. The respondent failed to demonstrate that the exclusion was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The aims advanced—cushioning younger employees, avoiding windfalls, and distributing finite resources—were not sufficiently established as legitimate social policy objectives in this context, nor was the exclusion shown to be necessary or the least discriminatory means. The scheme adversely affected employees over 65, including the claimant, and the respondent did not conduct an equality audit or consider less discriminatory alternatives.

Citation
[2017] NIIT 00924_15IT
Parties
Claimant: Bernard Barlow; Respondent: Gallaher Limited
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
30 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment on Liability
Outcome
claims of direct and indirect age discrimination upheld
Legal Topics
Age Discrimination, Redundancy Payments, Direct Discrimination, Indirect Discrimination, Objective Justification, Employment Equality
Employment Law Discrimination Law Age Discrimination Redundancy Payments Direct Discrimination Indirect Discrimination Objective Justification Employment Equality

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bernard Barlow

Claimant

Gallaher Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exclusion of employees over 65 from enhanced redundancy scheme constitutes direct and/or indirect age discrimination
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's actions were a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim under age discrimination law

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusion of employees over 65 from the enhanced redundancy scheme constituted both direct and indirect age discrimination. The respondent failed to demonstrate that the exclusion was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The aims advanced—cushioning younger employees, avoiding windfalls, and distributing finite resources—were not sufficiently established as legitimate social policy objectives in this context, nor was the exclusion shown to be necessary or the least discriminatory means. The scheme adversely affected employees over 65, including the claimant, and the respondent did not conduct an equality audit or consider less discriminatory alternatives.

Court Disposition

claims of direct and indirect age discrimination upheld

Orders

  • Compensation to be determined in accordance with Paragraph 24 of the decision