The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has upheld an employment tribunal’s decision that as at 31st December 2006 a law firm’s mandatory retirement age of 65 for partners was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims of workforce planning and staff retention. The retirement age was objectively justified and did not amount to direct age discrimination against a partner who was required to retire on that date.
Whether an employer can justfy mandatory retirement will still, to a large extent, depend on the nature of its business. Certain employers might be encouraged by the acceptance that the firm’s aim of retention and workforce planning could only be achieved by way of a mandatory retirement age and that a range of retirement ages could potentially have been proportionate.
This article is © Endeavour Partnership LLP 2014 and may not be reproduced without our express permission.
This article is a general summary and should not be relied upon in the place of seeking professional advice in respect of any specific situation.
No responsibility can be accepted for any actions based on the information in this article.
Share this post: