Both the Québec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (Québec Charter) as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Canadian Charter)
The Equality Bill (the Bill) was published on 27 April 2009.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has published its response to its consultation on proposed exemptions to the age discrimination requirements to address certain issues on flexible retirement, which had been delayed pending judgment in the "Heyday" case (see our September 2009 update).
In our employment update of 25 September, we summarised the High Court’s decision in R (on the application of Age UK) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation & Skills 2009 EWHC 2336 (or the Heyday case as it is more commonly known) on the legality of the default retirement age.
Currently, a non-discrimination rule relating to age, disability, religion or belief and sexual orientation is implied into pension scheme rules.
In our March 2009 update we noted that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) had given its judgment in what had become known as the "Heyday" case and which was concerned with whether a default retirement age of 65 could be justified in principle in the light of the age discrimination provisions.
In this Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decision, the EAT upheld the original tribunal decision that an employee had been subjected to direct discrimination on grounds of his age when his employer had dismissed him after 30 years’ service just before his 50th birthday in order to avoid his becoming entitled to the enhanced early retirement benefits that would have applied from age 50.
This was an employment case in which the principal issue was whether ICI’s contractual redundancy payments scheme discriminated against the claimant on grounds of her age.
In our Pensions update of October 2008, we reported on the original High Court decision in which the employer, Rolls Royce, argued unsuccessfully that using an employee’s length of service as a selection criterion for redundancy was unlawful age discrimination.
In the 2007 case of Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes (ET11002752007), an employment tribunal held that the compulsory retirement of a partner in a law firm was direct age discrimination under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (the Regulations).