Age discrimination

NSCL enhanced statutory redundancy payments so its employees received 3 weeks’ gross pay for each year of service when they were aged under 40 and 4 weeks’ pay for each year they were aged over 40 (this clearly did not satisfy the conditions for permitted enhancements in the age discrimination regulations).

A tribunal had to decide whether or not a contractual redundancy scheme that made payouts based on a percentage of gross pay depending on age and length of service could be justified. There were significant jumps in the level of payment when staff reached a particular age or number of years' service.

Is it age discrimination to provide private medical insurance (PMI) to staff under a flexible benefits scheme where the cost of cover depends on the age of the employee? No, according to this tribunal decision.

W was sacked 10 weeks after starting work, having been told she was too young for the job. The tribunal found the company made a ‘stereotypical assumption that capability equals experience and experience equals older age’ and that ‘age was the predominant reason to dismiss’.