||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 71 (Dec)
||Employment Appeal Tribunal
Judge David Richardson, Mr B Beynon and Mr M worthington.
||Diya Sen Gupta (instructed by Dentons Middle East Partners LLP) for the employee.
||Deshpal Panesar (instructed by Furley Page LLP, Kent) for the employer.
||25 November 2014
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 - .
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 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.
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases