Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+

Case law

Rutherford and Another v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Court of Appeal, 3 September 2004

by Eversheds HR Group 28 Sep 2004
by Eversheds HR Group 28 Sep 2004

Age discrimination overruled:Mr Rutherford was dismissed at the age of 67, and Mr Bentley at 73. Both claimed redundancy pay, but Rutherford also claimed unfair dismissal. The tribunal held that the upper age limit of 65 for bringing such claims was indirectly discriminatory against men, on the basis that more men than women remained in work beyond the age of 65, and so were more likely to be disadvantaged by the age limit.This decision was overturned by the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) because the tribunal had not used adequate statistics in reaching its conclusion. A second tribunal held that the age limit was indirectly discriminatory. But this was also overturned by the EAT, which held that the tribunal had wrongly defined the comparison pool. According to the EAT, the correct pool was the entire workforce between the ages of 16 and 79, from which a comparison should be made between the number of men and women who were not excluded by the age limit. Based on this, the difference was so slight it did not amount to an adverse impact on men.

Avatar
Eversheds HR Group

previous post
Letters
next post
Small businesses in the dark over raft of new legislation

You may also like

School discriminated against Christian caretaker who tweeted against...

3 May 2022

Philosophical belief: barrister’s tribunal claim against Stonewall begins

26 Apr 2022

EAT hears David Mackereth’s appeal against trans pronouns...

29 Mar 2022

Trade union detriment: action short of dismissal is...

25 Mar 2022

Rail inspector with ‘shy bladder syndrome’ wins £90,000...

16 Mar 2022

Pimlico Plumbers holiday pay ruling: four steps for...

9 Mar 2022

EAT hears appeal of Christian sacked for LGBT...

28 Feb 2022

Court of Appeal: agency workers do not have...

21 Feb 2022

Pimlico Plumbers loses holiday pay appeal in case...

1 Feb 2022

BNP Paribas to pay £2.1m to banker who...

31 Jan 2022
  • Strathclyde Business School expands its Degree Apprenticeship offer in England PROMOTED | The University of Strathclyde is expanding its programmes...Read more
  • The Search for Talent: Six Major Employer Pitfalls PROMOTED | The Great Resignation continues unabated...Read more
  • Navigating the widening “Skills Confidence Gap” in 2022, and beyond PROMOTED | Cornerstone OnDemand conducted a global study...Read more
  • Apprenticeships are the solution to your recruitment problems PROMOTED | Apprenticeships have the pulling power...Read more
  • What it really means to be mentally fit PROMOTED | What is mental fitness...Read more
  • How music can help to ease anxiety at work PROMOTED | A lot has happened since March 2020, hasn’t it?...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 2022

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2022 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
    • Advertise
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Equality, diversity and inclusion
    • 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
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • Maternity & Paternity
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
    • OHW Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • XpertHR
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Pricing
    • Free trial
    • Subscribe
    • XpertHR USA
  • Webinars
  • OHW+