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.
This ET decision deals with the issue of "windfall" payments to employees.
A German law restricting the minimum periods of notice for those aged under 25 was found to be discriminatory and unjustified.
The ECJ has given its judgment on a German law setting a maximum age limit of 68 for dentists to be accredited to work in the German national health service.
The ECJ has given their judgement on a German law restricting applications to the fire service to those under 30.
In this case, the British Gurkha Welfare Society (“BGWS”) sought to challenge the pension arrangements put in place for Gurkhas following a government review in December 2006.
A 42 year old banker was discriminated on the grounds of his age after his employer fired him and sought to replace him with someone with a "younger, entrepreneurial" style.
A litigant bringing frivolous age discrimination claims has her appeal dismissed and costs awarded against her.
The Advocate General has given an opinion that a German law setting down minimum periods of notice, but which excludes all time worked before the age of 25, is incompatible with EU law.
Barking and Dagenham Council loses appeal after 15 employees bring age discrimination claim.
A change from one policy to another policy cannot in itself be a provision, criterion or practice for the purposes of the Age Regulations.
The High Court has given judgment on R (on the application of Age UK) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2009] EWHC 2336 (Admin) – known as the “Heyday” case.
A former Council employee is successful in possibly the highest value age discrimination claim to date
The AG has given an opinion on a German law restricting applications to the fire service to those under 30.
A former Chief Executive of an NHS Trust was not discriminated against.
ET finds that comments made to a 52 year old Sainbury’s manager that implied she was ‘past it’ was direct age discrimination and awards compensation of £124,182.
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.
A Scottish ET has considered the level of compensation to be awarded when an employer does not give notice of intended retirement to an employee within the required timescales.
This is a decision of the Scottish Division of the EAT concerning the construction of Regulation 24 of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.
A Scottish employment tribunal has held that an employer did not disadvantage more mature employees by including developmental needs in its selection criteria.