Age Descrimination.info logo
 
Skip Navigation LinksHome > Cases > Cases > Recruitment
 
 
Recruitment Cases

Mott MacDonald v Rivkin (EAT decision)

08 March 2011

Subjects Recruitment; Burden of proof

Source (Lewis Silkin LLP)

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.

Harper v Moulton College (ET decision)

18 February 2011

Subjects Recruitment; Dismissal

Source (Lewis Silkin LLP)

Mrs Harper wins nearly £150,000 in age discrimination claim.

O'Reilly v BBC (Employment Tribunal decision)

10 January 2011

Subjects Justification; Recruitment

Source (Lewis Silkin LLP)

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.

Berry v Recruitment Revolution and others

25 November 2010

Subject Recruitment

Source (Lewis Silkin LLP)

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.

Mr P Frost v David Harber Limited

23 March 2010

Subjects Recruitment; Burden of proof

Source (Lewis Silkin LLP)

This case deals with using "age" as a selection criteria in recruitment. The decision itself is well worth a read and contains useful lessons for any employer.

Kücükdeveci v Swedex (ECJ decision)

19 January 2010

Subjects Justification; Recruitment; International case

Source (Lewis Silkin LLP)

A German law restricting the minimum periods of notice for those aged under 25 was found to be discriminatory and unjustified. The ECJ also gave further definition to the ruling in Mangold -v- Helm.

Wolf v Stadt Frankfurt am Main (ECJ decision)

12 January 2010

Subjects Justification; Recruitment; International case

Source (Lewis Silkin LLP)

The ECJ has given their judgement on a German law restricting applications to the fire service to those under 30.

Keane v Investigo and others

11 December 2009

Subject Recruitment

Source (Lewis Silkin LLP)

A litigant bringing frivolous age discrimination claims has her appeal dismissed and costs awarded against her.

Wolf v Stadt Frankfurt am Main (Advocate-General opinion)

08 September 2009

Subjects Recruitment; International case

Source (Lewis Silkin LLP)

The Advocate-General has given an opinion on a German law restricting applications to the fire service to those under 30.

Baker v National Air Traffic Services Limited

03 March 2009

Subjects Justification; Recruitment

Source (Lewis Silkin LLP)

Upper age limit of 35 for recruitment of air traffic controllers held unlawful

Montgomery v Sellar Property Group and others

21 November 2008

Subjects Recruitment; Burden of proof

Source (Lewis Silkin LLP)

Despite seeking a “dynamic young accountant”, SPG was found not to have discriminated on the grounds of age in their recruitment.

McCoy v McGregor and Sons Ltd

02 October 2008

Subjects Recruitment; Burden of proof

Source (Lewis Silkin LLP)

The decision of the Northern Ireland employment tribunal in McCoy v McGregor and Sons Ltd is a cautionary tale for employers who have not eliminated age-related language and questions from their recruitment exercises.

Wilkinson v Springwell Engineering Ltd

02 October 2008

Subjects Recruitment; Burden of proof

Source (Lewis Silkin LLP)

The youngest claimant, in Wilkinson v Springwell Engineering Ltd, was 18 when she was dismissed, ostensibly on grounds of her capability.

Rainbow v Milton Keynes Council

08 September 2008

Subjects Justification; Recruitment; Indirect Discrimination

Source (Lewis Silkin LLP)

A 61 year old teacher who was not shortlisted for a job advertised for candidates ‘in the first five years of their career’ was indirectly discriminated against on the grounds of her age.

Rains v Commission for Racial Equality

23 July 2007

Subjects Recruitment; Indirect Discrimination

Source (Lewis Silkin LLP)

The requirement for recent "hands on" experience was not age discriminatory