JPP Law Blog
Obliging older police officers to retire was not age discrimination
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled that a decision by several police forces to oblige some of their older officers to retire was not age discrimination as it was the only way to reduce staffing levels following budget cuts.
The tribunal heard evidence that the officers had been required to retire "in the general interests of efficiency".
The trigger for the imposition of enforced retirement was that each officer had served for 30 years, and thus qualified for a pension of two thirds average pensionable pay. Pensionable service began at the age of 18 and therefore officers as young as 48 were required to retire up to 17 years prior to their normal compulsory retirement age.
The officers brought claims for indirect age discrimination. The employment tribunal found that the police forces should have explored alternative options before going ahead in a blanket fashion and consequently, the resulting indirect age discrimination suffered by the officers was not justified.
Specifically, it stated that the practice of requiring the retirement of officers was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
That decision has been overturned by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. It held that the question was whether enforced retirement was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The right way to characterise the forces' aim was that they wished to achieve the maximum practicable reduction in the numbers of their officers. That was unquestionably a legitimate aim.
The essential, and unusual, feature of the case was that, because of the absence of any general power to dismiss serving officers, the use of enforced retirement was the only option available.
There was no other legal way to reduce numbers on a mass basis. In those circumstances, it was hard to see how its use could be said to be disproportionate.
To find out more about JPP's employment law services please visit employment law
JPP Law Blog

- Case Studies and Reviews (9)
- Commercial Law (88)
- Dispute Resolution (27)
- Employment Law (118)
- Intellectual Property (2)
- Start-ups (20)
- Videos (8)
- 2021 January (1)
- 2020 December (1)
- 2020 November (2)
- 2020 October (2)
- 2020 September (2)
- 2020 August (1)
- 2020 July (3)
- 2020 June (1)
- 2020 May (3)
- 2020 April (1)
- 2020 March (2)
- 2020 February (2)
- 2020 January (2)
- 2019 December (2)
- 2019 October (1)
- 2019 September (5)
- 2019 July (3)
- 2019 June (2)
- 2019 May (2)
- 2019 April (3)
- 2019 March (2)
- 2019 February (2)
- 2019 January (2)
- 2018 December (2)
- 2018 October (4)
- 2018 September (12)
- 2018 February (6)
- 2018 January (7)
- 2017 December (2)
- 2018 July (14)
- 2018 June (2)
- 2018 May (13)
- 2018 April (8)
- 2018 March (11)
- 2017 November (6)
- 2017 October (12)
- 2017 September (14)
- 2017 July (7)
- 2017 June (10)
- 2017 May (6)
- 2017 April (4)
- 2017 March (11)
- 2017 February (6)
- 2017 January (1)
- 2016 December (2)
- 2016 September (4)
- 2016 July (1)