Employers can change from one non-discriminatory policy to another, even if the group to whom the less generous policy applies happens to be predominantly of a different gender, race, age group etc to those benefitting from the more generous policy.
The EAT has ruled that employees cannot claim indirect age discrimination simply because of a difference of age profile between those made redundant before and after the date of introduction of less generous redundancy pay terms. A change of policy is not itself a "provision, criterion or practice" capable of founding an indirect discrimination claim.
The EAT also confirmed that the practice of offering an enhanced redundancy payment in return for a compromise agreement waiving rights to bring an age discrimination claim was not unlawful discrimination. Even if it had a discriminatory impact, employers have a legitimate interest in achieving finality by making an ex gratia payment conditional on settling claims. (ABN Amro v Hogben, EAT)