The employment tribunal found that a law firm discriminated in favor of a senior partner by implementing a retirement policy.
Martin Scott worked as the head of engineering and construction at Walker Morris, a senior partnership in Leeds.
He was required to request an extension in 2020 to stay at the company beyond 60 years of age. He was given the extension because he made “exceptional contributions”, but he left in 2023 after another extension was denied.
Scott filed a complaint against the firm alleging age discrimination. The tribunal now has upheld the claim.
The judgement found Walker Morris had a range of options to mandatory retirement, including tailored performance assessments. The court found that there was “very little evidence, if any,” of Walker Morris seriously considering any other route.
The tribunal heard a new policy on retirement had been implemented in 2018 and that four partners had requested extensions past 60. Scott was the sole partner who applied for a second period of extension.
Another applicant was granted an age extension up to 64 years old on the condition that he not apply for any more. This meant he could retire before his 65th year. The person in question was a “rainmaker”, which means he brought lots of money to the business.
Walker Morris was found to have failed to provide evidence to support its restrictive policy. The tribunal concluded that the policy is based on “discriminatory attitudes and assumptions towards older partners”, which are “not supported by documentary or objective evidence”.
It is sometimes legal to enforce or impose a compulsory retirement policy if the goal is fair and legitimate.
In the academic world , there have been a number of cases where universities were found to have discriminatory retirement plans. However, some decisions have been justified.
Matrix Chambers which represented Scott said that the ruling would be interesting to law firms as well as other professional service companies who “presumptively require” partners to retire by a certain age.
This case is a continuation of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes in 2012.
In May, a hearing will be held to determine his compensation.
Subscribe to our weekly HR news and guidance
Every Wednesday, receive the Personnel Today Direct newsletter.
