Local Government - March 2009
Age discrimination
Back in 2006, legislation was introduced in
this country outlawing age related discrimination in the work
place. During the first year that the legislation was in place some
950 claims were made, however in more recent times this figure has
tripled to nearly 3000 and remains on the rise.
Awareness of the law has increased amongst
both job applicants and employees. As with other forms of
discrimination legislation and unlike unfair dismissal, claimants
do not need any service requirements in order to bring a claim. So
the recruitment process can be a fertile ground for claims of age
discrimination, with those involved in the interviewing process
often not fully aware of the potential liabilities.
When the legislation was first introduced it
was suggested that it would benefit the ‘pale stale male’ but
whilst older males may be more protected by the law, it’s been the
women who have tended to grab the headlines. Most notably Selina
Scott, who in January 2009 reached an out of Court settlement with
Channel 5, estimated at up to £250,000, the highest level of
compensation so far paid under the age discrimination rules.
Unlike compensation in unfair dismissal cases
which is capped at £66,200, awards in age discrimination cases are
unlimited and include an element for injury to feelings. The
payment made to Selina, who is 57, apparently relates to the
£200,000 or so that she had expected to earn over the six month
period that she was to provide maternity leave cover for Natasha
Kaplinsky. Five News, however, ultimately decided to hire Isla
Tragnair aged 28. Ironically Selina herself got a big break at a
similar age when she was chosen to present News at Ten for ITV.
Selina made her claim at a time when many were
questioning the recruitment policy of television companies given
the age profile of presenters on current affairs programmes.
Selina’s case unsurprisingly attracted plenty
of publicity and so will have raised the profile of age
discrimination law amongst the public and highlighted the level of
compensation that can be recovered in successful cases. Employers
who ignore the legislation do so at their peril particularly given
how easy it is to make a claim before an Employment Tribunal and at
no cost to the individual.
We have an aging population in this country
with many employees wanting to work longer both because they are
physically capable and because they cannot afford to rely on their
pension, if they have one to support them. If they are prevented
from carrying on with their job then they may see a claim as their
only option.
As we reported in our previous newsletter
employers can look to minimise the risk of a claim of age
discrimination by ensuring that staff involved in recruitment and
day to day management of employees are fully trained and aware of
relevant legislation, that redundancy selection criteria do not
discriminate against a particular age group and that the
appropriate procedure is followed when employees are nearing
65.
Jane Hobson
Partner
Weightmans LLP