Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2014] All ER (D) 71 (Dec)
Court: Employment Appeal Tribunal
Judge:

Judge David Richardson, Mr B Beynon and Mr M worthington.

Representation Diya Sen Gupta (instructed by Dentons Middle East Partners LLP) for the employee.
  Deshpal Panesar (instructed by Furley Page LLP, Kent) for the employer.
Judgment Dates: 25 November 2014

Catchwords

Discrimination - Employment - Age discrimination - Employee applying for lecturer post - Applicants being required to hold PhD - Employee not having PhD - Employee's application being rejected - Tribunal dismissing employee's claim of indirect age discrimination relating to requirement that he should hold PhD - Whether tribunal erring - .

The Case

Discrimination Employment. The employee appealed against a decision of the employment tribunal, which dismissed his claim of indirect age discrimination. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, in allowing the employee's appeal, determined that the tribunal had erred in law in its approach to the question of 'particular disadvantage' for the purposes of s19(2)(b) of the . Further, it had not given reasons which complied with Meek v City of Birmingham District Council[1987] IRLR 250, for its conclusion as to whether the provision, criterion or practice which the employer had applied had been a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, for the purposes of s19(2)(d) of the Act.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.