Posted by Natalie Birrell (PR Consultant),
On 1 September 2016 Withy King LLP merged with Royds LLP. The trading name for the merged firm is Royds Withy King. All content produced prior to this date will remain in the name of the firms pre-merger.
In the case of Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes, the age discrimination case regarding a partner of a law firm who had been retired at the firm’s mandatory retirement age of 65 and who had challenged this on the …
In the case of Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes, the age discrimination case regarding a partner of a law firm who had been retired at the firm’s mandatory retirement age of 65 and who had challenged this on the basis that it was age discriminatory, which went all the way to the Supreme Court, only to be remitted back to a different Tribunal, has now been through the different Tribunal and the EAT. Mr Seldon has lost at every stage.
The Tribunal held that the retirement age is proportionate and therefore justified although it only gave a narrow range of retirement ages which could have achieved the necessary balance. The EAT rejected Mr Seldon’s argument that the firm’s aims could have been achieved by a retirement age of 66, that the age of 65 could not be justified as it had a greater discriminatory effect than 66 would have done. The EAT found however that the Tribunal had correctly analysed that the retirement age of 65 was reasonably necessary in all the circumstances of the case and the professional situation.
This legal update is provided for general information purposes only and should not be applied to specific circumstances without prior consultation with us.
For further details on any of the issues covered in this update please contact Gemma Ospedale, Partner in Employment on 020 7583 2222.