Seldon v. Clarkson Wright & Jakes [2008] UKEAT 0063_08_1912 (19 December 2008)

Seldon v. Clarkson Wright & Jakes [2008] UKEAT 0063_08_1912 (19 December 2008)

The partnership's compulsory retirement rule at age 65 constitutes direct age discrimination, which may be justified by legitimate aims such as retention and promotion of associates and workforce planning. However, the Tribunal erred in accepting, without evidence, that performance drops at 65, amounting to stereotyping. The rule is not justified on the basis of performance decline at 65, but may be justified by the other aims. The case is remitted to the Tribunal to reconsider justification based solely on the legitimate aims of retention and planning.

Citation
[2008] UKEAT 0121_07_1812
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Mr Seldon; Respondent: Clarkson Wright and Jakes (CWJ); Intervenor: Equality and Human Rights Commission
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
18 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision, Remitted to Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; case remitted to Tribunal for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Age Discrimination, Direct Discrimination, Justification Defence, Partnership Law, Retirement Age, Proportionality, Legitimate Aim
Employment Law Equality Law European Union Law Age Discrimination Direct Discrimination Justification Defence Partnership Law Retirement Age +2 more

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Seldon

Appellant/claimant

Clarkson Wright and Jakes (CWJ)

Respondent

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision, Remitted to Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether compulsory retirement at age 65 for partners constitutes unlawful direct age discrimination
  2. 2 Whether the rule is justified by legitimate aims and is proportionate
  3. 3 Whether the assumption that performance drops at 65 is evidence-based or stereotyped

Ratio Decidendi

The partnership's compulsory retirement rule at age 65 constitutes direct age discrimination, which may be justified by legitimate aims such as retention and promotion of associates and workforce planning. However, the Tribunal erred in accepting, without evidence, that performance drops at 65, amounting to stereotyping. The rule is not justified on the basis of performance decline at 65, but may be justified by the other aims. The case is remitted to the Tribunal to reconsider justification based solely on the legitimate aims of retention and planning.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; case remitted to Tribunal for reconsideration.

Orders

  • Remitted to the same Employment Tribunal to reconsider justification for the compulsory retirement rule based only on legitimate aims of retention and planning, excluding performance decline at age 65.