Most workers wouldn't see the £4.5 that lawyer Peter Bloxham was claiming from his former employers Freshfields in a number of lifetimes. Bloxham believed that new pension arrangements were made with the intention of forcing him and others out to make way for 'new blood'. That may have been the case, but as WorkRep has already reported in previous articles,
Bit Of A Damp Squib
Complaint About Mandatory Retirement Ages Referred To European Court Of Justice
the new Age Discrimination Legislation is full of holes.
It emerged under cross examination in the ET that no account had even been taken of the new Age Discrimination Legislation by the barrister advising Freshfields when the pension arrangements were changed at Freshfields.
Under normal circumstances this admission might have accounted for something, but Freshfields relied on the regulations whereby an employer will be able to avoid liability for direct and indirect age discrimination if it can be showed that this discrimination was 'objectively justified'.
The defence that the discriminatory treatment (of treating someone less favourably on the ground of age, or of applying a provision with the effect of putting someone to a disadvantage because of their age) was a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim' has been accepted by the ET.
So there it is, a 'legitimate' business aim justifies direct and indirect age discrimination.
That Bloxham has now lost his case in the Employment Tribunal means that, as predicted when this legislation came out, employers have little reason to fear when discriminating against workers because of their age.
This decision coming after the recent European Court Of Justice decision (ECJ) regarding mandatory retirement ages serves only to underline the fact that age discrimination is largely still permitted in the UK.
It will be a pretty stupid employer who falls foul of the age legislation.
© Workrep 19 / 10 / 2007