A change from one policy to another policy cannot in itself be a provision, criterion or practice for the purposes of the Age Regulations.
Viewing entries in
EAT
A former Council employee is successful in possibly the highest value age discrimination claim to date
The EAT found that a manager's dismissal of an employee, based on a belief that the employee held ageist views, did not justify an inference that the employee had been dismissed by reason of his age.
This is a decision of the Scottish Division of the EAT concerning the construction of Regulation 24 of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.
The EAT rejects a law firm's claim that it is legitimate to retire partners at 65 as their performance declines at about that age.
A legal adviser, aged 61, ineligible for promotion unless he obtained a law degree was not discriminated against on the grounds of his age.
An age cut-off for redundancy payments can be justified if pension provision adequately cushions the impact of financial loss.
The EAT rules that ICI can potentially justify both age and service elements in their enhanced redundancy scheme.
The financial cost to a private employer of avoiding an indirectly discriminatory provision will not, on its own, be a good enough justification.