The recent case of Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire relates to a claim brought by a 61-year-old male employee who asserted that he had suffered discrimination on the grounds of age after being rejected for a top salary grade due to the fact that he did not have a law degree. The employee in question had a career as a police officer which spanned over 30 years and had significant experience in criminal law. However, in an effort to attract and retain legal advisers, a new pay structure was implemented by the Police National Legal Database (PNLD) which meant that the employee’s application to be regarded at the top of the three new grades was rejected as he did not have a law degree. His appeal and grievance were also rejected, and his subsequent claim for indirect discrimination went all the way to the Court of Appeal.
Despite the Employment Tribunal finding that the PNLD had applied a provision, criterion or practice which put a specific age group, 60-65, at a particular disadvantage (as they could not achieve the required qualification prior to the standard retirement age), the EAT and the Court of Appeal concluded otherwise. The EAT held that there was no basis to argue that those in the 60-65 age group suffered any particular disadvantage as all of those without a degree, regardless of age, would be treated the same way.
Having said that, the Court of Appeal did rely on the case of McCluskey v Edge Hill University, a case of similar facts, where it was accepted that it was a legitimate aim for a university operating in a highly competitive market to have a mix of academic staff who all possess a degree. It is important to note that although this defence stood up in the case of a university, the courts in the future may not be so forgiving where the employer is a different type of body. Suffice to say, the employee in Homer has applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.