Key Facts
- •Mr. Cook, employed since 1992, was dismissed by Gentoo Group Limited due to redundancy.
- •Gentoo rushed the redundancy process to avoid paying an enhanced pension payment of approximately £80,000, which would be triggered if the dismissal occurred after Mr. Cook turned 55.
- •The employment tribunal found the dismissal unfair due to procedural flaws but rejected the age discrimination claim.
- •The EAT remitted the age discrimination claim to a new tribunal for reconsideration due to inadequate reasoning by the original tribunal.
Legal Principles
Direct age discrimination is prohibited, but can be justified if the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Equality Act 2010, section 13
Justification of direct age discrimination requires consideration of 'social policy objectives' and a balancing exercise between the discriminatory effect and the legitimate aim.
Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes [2012] UKSC 16
Cost savings alone are insufficient to justify direct age discrimination; there must be a legitimate aim beyond mere cost reduction.
Woodcock v Cumbria Primary Care Trust [2012] EWCA Civ 330
The tests for unfair dismissal and justification of direct age discrimination are distinct.
City of York Council v Grosset [2018] EWCA Civ 1105
Justification requires a detailed analysis, balancing the discriminatory impact against the legitimate aim, and considering whether the chosen means were appropriate and reasonably necessary.
Hardy & Hansons Plc v Lax [2005] EWCA Civ 846
Outcomes
The employment tribunal's rejection of the age discrimination claim was remitted to a new tribunal.
The original tribunal's reasoning was inadequate; it failed to properly apply the legal principles concerning justification of direct age discrimination.
The 15% reduction in compensation for Mr. Cook's conduct was revoked.
This was agreed by both parties.