Law Firm Partner Age Discrimination Claim Fails

4th July 2014

Law Firm Partner Age Discrimination Claim Fails

image (61)

Professional firms that follow the traditional course of fixing a particular age at which their partners are given their gold watches and required to retire will be relieved to hear that the practice does not fall foul of the ban on age discrimination.

In the closely watched case of Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes, the former managing partner of a law firm launched proceedings after he was required to retire at 65. His case had progressed all the way to the Supreme Court, which found that the firm’s practice was justified by the desirability of retaining associate partners, reasonable workforce planning and its wish to avoid challenging ageing partners over declining performance.

The sole question left open was whether the firm’s compulsory retirement age could lawfully be fixed at 65, rather than some higher age – say 68 or 70 – which would be perceived as less discriminatory. In rejecting the ex-partner’s case on that issue, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that the firm’s choice of 65 was sensible and proportionate.

The EAT ruled, consistently with decisions already reached by the superior courts, that the firm was pursuing legitimate aims when it required the man to retire. It was also relevant that he had consented to leave his post at 65 when he signed his partnership agreement and it had been legitimate for the firm to take into account the fact that the state retirement age was 65.

Comment

This decision is good news for employers that have held onto mandatory retirement ages but it is important to remember that every case turns on its own facts. Of particular significance to the EAT’s decision was the fact that at the time of Mr Seldon’s dismissal the state pension age was still 65 and there was a statutory default retirement age of 65 for employees (although not for partners). It remains the case therefore that employers wishing to use a mandatory retirement age must think very carefully about whether they can objectively justify it and look at the facts that apply to their own businesses.

Blog Posts

Is your fulfilment business under threat?

07/08/2017

The Fulfilment House Due Diligence Scheme - the new weapon in the war on…

Read More
Upcoming Events

Careers Making a Difference Fair

25/09/2017

Careers Making a Difference Fair is a fantastic opportunity to chat to employers about their…

Read More
News Posts

Disturbing practice of ‘upskirting’ raises questions for employers

25/09/2017

The scourge of ‘upskirting' - photographing underneath a person’s clothing without their consent –…

Read More

Testimonials

"Friendly and helpful staff. A smooth and efficient legal service."

- MR

"Professional yet friendly service available from a conveniently located office."

- JR

"Clear, helpful advice, polite and friendly, prompt attention."

- GP

"High degree of professionalism whilst remaining sympathetic and friendly."

- PC

"Helpful and swift service, delivered in a friendly and approachable way."

- AC

"Gotelee inspires a sense of calm, confidence, trust & history."

- PB

"Determination, patience and diligence of Chris Moffat."

- MLP

"Diana really seemed to care and made the whole process as painless as possible."

- PL

"Rhonda Pryke was very helpful, explained what was to happen, dealt with queries very efficiently."

- DH

"All reception staff very friendly, Hilary Durrell made everything simple so I could understand what was needed."

- AD

Please select preferred method of contact

* We will only contact you by telephone if you select this as primary form of contact.