Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Age discriminationPoliceRetirement

Age discrimination: EAT considers “A19” forced retirement of police

by Personnel Today 16 Mar 2015
by Personnel Today 16 Mar 2015 New police officers "passing out", but when will they retire? Photo: Nils Jorgensen/REX
New police officers "passing out", but when will they retire? Photo: Nils Jorgensen/REX

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has heard the appeal in a test case against five police forces over the legality of a rule requiring police officers to retire after 30 years’ service to cut costs.

Age discrimination and police retirement: judgment published

The judgment in this case was published on 8 July 2015. XpertHR has a full case report on Chief Constable of West Midlands Police and others v Harrod and others, including guidance on the implications for employers.

The appeal in this case, which has wide implications for all police forces in England and Wales, was heard in the EAT on 11 to 13 March 2015.

In Harrod and others v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police and others, a test age discrimination case was brought in the employment tribunal against five police forces over their liberal use of the “A19 rule”.

This rule in police pension regulations allows police forces to require a police officer to retire once he or she reaches 30 years’ service and is entitled to a pension of two-thirds of pensionable pay.

Police forces’ adoption of the A19 rule increased as budgets were substantially cut and the forces had to find new ways, alongside traditional methods such as a recruitment freeze, to cut their expenditure.

The police forces were given legal advice that, while wider use of the A19 rule would be indirectly discriminatory, it was possible that it could be justified.

The employment tribunal upheld the police officers’ age discrimination claim. The tribunal found that the widespread practice of requiring the retirement of officers in this way is not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

A19 police retirement rule

Compulsory retirement on grounds of efficiency of the force

“(1) This Regulation shall apply to a regular policeman … who if required to retire would be entitled to receive a pension of an amount not less than two thirds of his average pensionable pay…

“(2) If a police authority determine that the retention in the force of a regular policeman to whom this Regulation applies would not be in the general interests of efficiency, he may be required to retire on such date as the police authority determine.”

Police Pensions Regulations 1987

XpertHR principal employment law editor Stephen Simpson, who attended the EAT hearing, said: “This case, while of specific interest to HR professionals in the police, is a warning to all public-sector employers looking for new ways to cut costs and increase efficiency. They need to have in mind the potentially discriminatory impact of their changes on groups with a protected characteristic.”

“The best way for an employer to think about this is to assess the balance between the potential benefits to it (here, costs savings) against the hardship to the individuals who will be affected. It is also useful for the employer to think about whether or not there is another less discriminatory way for it to achieve the same result.”

Simpson advises: “It will help an employer facing a claim enormously to have identified early any groups who might be disadvantaged and to have set down this assessment in writing at the time that it made its decisions. The employer should set down evidence of the benefits to it and the disadvantages to whoever will be affected.

“This will at least show to the tribunal judge in any later discrimination claim that the employer has considered whether or not its actions can be justified.”

The original employment tribunal claim involved around 200 officers. However, since the employment tribunal ruling, police forces have received over 800 more claims from officers. This means that over 1,000 police officers are now eagerly awaiting the judgment. A total of 15 police forces in England and Wales have made use of the A19 rule. West Midlands Police alone faces almost 500 claims.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Judgment was reserved at the end of the EAT hearing. It is likely to be several months before the final judgment is delivered. The claims were brought against the police forces of Devon and Cornwall, Nottinghamshire, the West Midlands, North Wales and South Wales.

More details of the arguments put forward by the police forces and the claimants in the appeal, and the main cases cited in the EAT hearing, are available on XpertHR.

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Government announces fund to help young adults with special educational needs
next post
St Patrick’s Day: five race discrimination claims by Irish workers

You may also like

Tribunal finds need for degree in redundancy selection...

14 May 2025

TPT to launch multi-employer CDC pension scheme

12 May 2025

Millions at risk of retiring under-pensioned

30 Apr 2025

Firearms officers to be granted anonymity

25 Apr 2025

Police who fail vetting checks face automatic dismissal

23 Apr 2025

West Yorkshire Police denies positive discrimination accusations

10 Apr 2025

Thames Valley Police ‘positive discrimination’ led to ‘divided...

4 Apr 2025

Met Police cuts 1,700 officers and staff in...

3 Apr 2025

Engineer awarded £25k after employer ‘trespassed’ his home

14 Mar 2025

Estate agent constructively dismissed after desk move ‘demotion’

11 Mar 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+