Employment tribunal rules compulsory retirement age to be justifiable

Many of the legal firms receiving HR training and advice from Employee Management Ltd (http://www.employeemanagement.co.uk) will have doubtless taken an interest in the Employment Tribunal's rejection of lawyer Leslie Seldon's age discrimination claim against his former firm Clarkson Wright and Jakes in May, following a six year legal battle that led to the Supreme Court.

Seldon had been forced to retire from the partnership of the firm at the age of 65 in 2006, a time when the default retirement age (DRA) was applicable to employees, but not partners. In 2007, he brought his landmark legal claim against the firm, with the case having taken on much wider significance among HR services clients after the abolition of the DRA for employees in 2011.

Employers wishing to retire workers at a certain age must now justify the policy as being proportionate in the achievement of a legitimate aim. The tribunal found the attraction and retention of talented solicitors and the facilitation of workforce planning to be legitimate aims, thereby rejecting Seldon's claim.

It also found that an acceptable balance was struck between the firm's needs and those of the individual partner by the imposition of a retirement age for 65 year old partners.

In words that will interest many employment law advice recipients, the Employment Tribunal stated that the requirement to reflect partners' and associates' expectations, ensure succession and fulfil the needs of the partnership rendered the retirement age justifiable at the time of Seldon's retirement.

The finding is good news for those employers retaining a compulsory retirement age following the default retirement age's abolition, as well as those considering imposing one. However, the best HR advice for such employers is to carefully consider the selected age and how the continued use of a retirement age can be objectively justified.

Although the tribunal found a retirement age of 65 to be justifiable in 2006 at the time of Seldon's forced retirement, it also expressly acknowledged that it may not be the appropriate age now. Reasons for this include not only the abolition of the default retirement age, but also a continuing rise in the state pension age and increasingly widespread expectations of employees working for longer.

Not all employers will therefore be able to rely on the same legitimate aims cited by the firm in the Seldon case. Despite these most recent findings, the onus remains on employers to clearly justify the introduction of their own retirement age.

Is your own firm contemplating the imposition of such a retirement age, or do you require clarification on any related aspects of employment law? If so, please feel free to get in touch with Employee Management Ltd (http://ww.employeemanagement.co.uk) today, for any of a wide range of services including proven and effective employment tribunal representation.

Editor’s Note: Employee Management Ltd (http://ww.employeemanagement.co.uk) are represented by the search engine advertising and digital marketing specialists Jumping Spider Media. Email: info@jumpingspidermedia.co.uk or call: +44 (0)20 3070 1959 / +34 952 783 637.