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.
Mrs Harper wins nearly £150,000 in age discrimination claim.
The Pension Ombudsman rules that tapering of a lump sum payment under the Civil Service Compensation Scheme was in breach of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.
In this case, an ET decides that a legal adviser salary band was not indirectly age discriminatory.
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.
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.
The ECJ rules that a default retirement provision in the Bulgarian Labour Code may be justified.
In this ongoing claim, the EAT has indicated that costs alone should be able to justify age discrimination.
A Danish law providing for severance payments for employees, but which excluded those who had attained pension age, constituted direct age discrimination.
The ECJ has held that a German law allowing compulsory retirement at 65 (state pension age) was justified age discrimination.
The Court of Appeal upheld an appeal.
In an interim hearing, an ET finds that the test in Regulation 32(2) of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 is a mix of objective and subjective tests.
The Court of Appeal rules that a partnership of solicitors can force partners to retire at 65.
The EAT upheld an ET's decision that a 42-year-old banker had suffered unlawful age discrimination because of a bank's use of the word "younger".
In this ET decision, Mrs Duggan came up with a creative argument to get around the default retirement age.
An ET case dealing with performance and management.
Applying a cap to payments under a redundancy scheme to ensure that employees close to pension age do not receive a windfall can be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
An ET holds that the duty to consider procedure in the Age Regulations requires an employer to genuinely consider an employee's request to work beyond retirement.
The Court of Appeal has upheld an earlier decision of the EAT that a requirement for a candidate for a job to have a degree was not age discriminatory
The ET rules that a retirement age of 48 for match officials is direct age discrimination.