A law firm discriminated against a senior partner through a mandatory retirement policy, the employment tribunal has found.
Martin Scott was a senior partner at Walker Morris in Leeds, working as head of construction and engineering.
In 2020, he was required to apply for an exceptional extension to remain at the firm beyond the age of 60. This was granted as he had made an “exceptional contribution”, but in 2023 he was forced to leave after a further extension was refused.
Scott brought a claim against the firm for age discrimination, and the tribunal has now upheld this claim.
Compulsory retirement
When is compulsory retirement justified?
Cambridge academics call on university to drop retirement age
The judgment found that Walker Morris could have pursued a number of alternatives to compulsory retirement such as tailored performance assessments. It said there was “very little, if any, evidence” of the firm giving serious consideration to any other routes.
The tribunal heard that a new retirement policy had been introduced in 2018, and four partners had applied for extensions beyond 60. Scott was the only partner to have applied for a second extension.
One other applicant had been granted an extension to the age of 64 on condition he would not apply for another, and this meant he would retire just before his 65th birthday. This person was considered a “rainmaker”, meaning he brought a lot of money into the business.
The tribunal found that Walker Morris failed to produce evidence to justify its restrictive approach. It concluded that the policy was underpinned by “discriminatory assumptions about and attitudes towards older partners” which were “not supported by any documentary or objective evidence”.
A compulsory or forced retirement policy can sometimes be lawful if it has a legitimate and fair aim.
There have been a number of decisions in academia where universities have been found to be discriminatory in running compulsory retirement schemes, although some have been found to be justified.
Matrix Chambers, which represented Scott, said the judgment would be of interest to law firms and other professional services companies that “presumptively” require partners to retire at a certain age.
The case follows on from the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes, handed down in 2012.
A remedy hearing to decide his compensation will be held in May.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Legal sector HR opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more HR opportunities in the legal sector
