Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes
Direct age discrimination can be justified only by reference to legitimate aims of a social policy nature, such as intergenerational fairness and dignity, and the means must be proportionate.
Facts
Mr Seldon was an equity partner in a firm of solicitors. The partnership deed provided that partners must retire at the end of the year in which they reached 65. When Mr Seldon reached 65, he wished to continue working, but the firm required him to retire. He claimed that this was direct age discrimination. The firm argued that the retirement age was justified, because it gave associates the opportunity of partnership, facilitated workforce planning, and avoided the need to expel partners for poor performance.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held that direct age discrimination can be justified only by reference to legitimate objectives of a public interest nature, such as intergenerational fairness, which includes allowing younger people to progress, and dignity, which includes avoiding the need to dismiss older workers for poor performance. These aims were legitimate. Lady Hale said that the tribunal must then decide whether the means chosen, the particular retirement age, was proportionate to achieving the aims in the particular business. The case was sent back to the tribunal, which later held that the retirement age of 65 was justified.
Related cases on discrimination at work
- Archibald v Fife Council [2004] UKHL 32, [2004] ICR 954
- Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police v Khan [2001] UKHL 48, [2001] 1 WLR 1947
- Coleman v Attridge Law Case C-303/06, [2008] ECR I-5603
- Essop v Home Office (UK Border Agency) [2017] UKSC 27, [2017] 1 WLR 1343
- Eweida v United Kingdom (2013) 57 EHRR 8
- Forstater v CGD Europe [2022] ICR 1
- Grainger plc v Nicholson [2010] ICR 360
- Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2012] UKSC 15, [2012] ICR 704
Studying employment law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
