A comment that someone was "too old" could be age-related harassment.
A claim for direct age discrimination in relation to a ‘pension age cap’ policy in a voluntary redundancy payment succeeded.
Previous “sham” redundancy involving an older employee was not evidence of age discrimination.
There was no age discrimination when a 60 year old was denied entitlement to a payment which would have enhanced his pension.
There was no evidence that a young female Polish worker was subject to direct age discrimination or age-related harassment.
A serial litigant was rejected from an assessment centre due to his “abrasive” attitude and not because of his age. He was ordered to pay the employer’s full legal costs.
An age discrimination claim failed where no suitable comparators were identified and the alleged discrimination was based solely on the claimant’s tendency to take offence easily.
The WASPI campaign fails as the High Court finds that changes to the state pension age for women are not directly or indirectly discriminatory to women born in the 1950s.
A woman was not dismissed because she was of “childbearing age”, meaning that she lost her claim of direct age discrimination
A decision to dismiss an older print room manager and replace him with younger colleagues was motivated by age, not a “breakdown of mutual trust and confidence”.
There was no age discrimination when a bird keeper was dismissed after a meeting in which retirement was described as “a lovely option”.
A Facebook job advert stating “Over 25s only” was enough to shift the burden of proof in a direct age discrimination claim, but the employer was able to disprove discrimination.
A job advert that said a pub was looking for staff "between the ages of 18 and 25" was both direct AND indirect age discrimination.
It was direct age discrimination to take duties away from a Showroom Manager because it was "too much responsibility" for someone who was "only 21".
An Employment Tribunal has said that "last in first out" is not an irrational method of redundancy selection.
The dismissal of a hairdresser for redundancy was not age discrimination, despite the fact that two younger members who were also made redundant had carried on working in the salon in a different capacity.
The EAT has considered whether “absence of financial means” is capable of justifying indirect age discrimination.
A Catholic Primary School did not have a practice or policy of hiring less experienced (and younger) teachers.