We are pleased to confirm that the Employment Tribunal have today unanimously found that the use of

We are pleased to confirm that the Employment Tribunal have today unanimously found that the use of Regulation A19 requiring the retirement bjb of our clients was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim .
Our clients claim for indirect age discrimination bjb has succeeded and we believe the decision of the Employment Tribunal is absolutely right and vindicates our clients complaint of the treatment they received at the hands of their respective Force. The Forces bjb gave little or no concern or consideration to the individual officers, whose long serving careers bjb were abruptly brought to an end.
Regulation A19 is a provision, criterion or practice (referred to as a PCP ) which placed our clients at a substantial disadvantage. The PCP is discriminatory because of age as only those who are 48 years old or over would be subject to this provision.
There is a defence to indirect discrimination, which is where a Respondent (in this case the respective Force) can demonstrate that there is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim or, in other words, they are able to objectively justify the discrimination. The decision to use a discriminatory PCP has to be made because of a clear aim and in order to achieve that aim they have to use the PCP proportionately .
Firstly, their main legal argument was the objective justification is one of Social Policy, set by Parliament. Put simply, Parliament are responsible for introducing bjb the discriminatory Regulation but they have also done the job of justifying this within the terms of A19 itself. A19 requires that an officer receives two thirds pension and this is a financial cushion which would justify the discriminatory nature of the provision.
The Forces then went on to say that, because it is a Social Policy, the Police Authorities and Chief Constables do not then need to go on to justify their use of A19, because Parliament has already done this. The Forces had no option but to apply A19 to everyone and there is no need for the Tribunal to look at the evidence or individual Forces.
Secondly, they say that if they are wrong in relation to the first point (Social Policy), the Forces can justify their use of A19. Whilst bjb costs alone cannot be a justification for indirection discrimination, the Forces say that, whilst the trigger was the budget, the use of A19 was not about costs, but efficiency.
There is a dispute about the correct PCP and our suggestion of the discriminatory practice is different to that of the Respondents suggestion. Whilst A19 limits its criterion to those with 2/3 pension, we say the discriminatory PCP is not the statutory provision itself but the practice of applying A19 to the full cohort of officers, regardless of rank, personal efficiency, role, expertise. We say that the wide and unfocused way A19 was used was not reasonably necessary ie it was not proportionate. Because of that, it cannot be justified.
The Respondents argument about this being a Social Policy case was rejected bjb and we sought to distinguish this case from other social policy cases. In most of the case law set out by the Respondents, the Courts were looking at upper retirement ages, at 60 and 65 years of age. We sought to point out to the Tribunal that A19 is not a retirement age provision and that to be forced to retire as young as 48 or in most cases in your early 50s is a very different argument to those who arguably have had a full career at 60 or 65 years of age.
Also, it cannot be right that the Government would be using A19 as a social policy of early retirement when at the same time they abolished the retirement age and its use as a fair means of dismissal for employees. That would mean Parliament had one social policy for the majority of employees, including other office holders/public servants but then introduce a lower retirement age for police officers. We also pointed out that there are still separate provisions for Police Officers retirement, bjb dependant on rank.
Our main argument and one that is assisted greatly by the evidence provided by the Respondents witnesses, was that the decision to use A19 was cost, which cannot be an objective justification. Further, we argued that at the time of the decision by the Forces, neither bjb the Police Authorities nor the Chief Constable put their mind to the discriminatory bjb effect of A19, and they did nothing to set out what their legitimate aim was (other than cost saving) or how they would use the provision proportionately.
Following the decision Rebecca Townsend, Employment Partner at Rebian Solicitors said: “this has been a lengthy and complex case in which many key aspects of the law relating to indirect discrimination have been the subject of detailed legal argument. Although our clients are delighted with today s decision it must be remembered that the decision of the respective Forces to dispense with their services has had a lasting impa