Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
Court of Appeal – 27 April 2010

Issues

The Issues
(1) Age discrimination
(2) Vocational qualifications
(3) Justification

Facts

Mr Homer was employed as a legal adviser by the Police National Legal Database ("PNLD"). He had 30 years' service in the police. When he was appointed to the post in 1995, it was sufficient for him to have "exceptional experience/skills in criminal law, combined with a lesser qualification in law" as an alternative to a law degree.

In 2005, the PNLD then changed the career structure within his department. Mr Homer now needed to have a law degree if he was to be promoted to the top tier of the career structure. He applied to be re-graded to the top tier, but his application was unsuccessful because he did not have the requisite law degree. All the other criteria were satisfied.

As he was 61 he could not complete a part-time law degree before he was 65. This requirement therefore prevented him from progressing within the department and benefiting from the higher salary available in the top band.

He claimed that this was indirect age discrimination as those within his age group were disadvantaged compared to those within the age bracket 30-59. To succeed, he had to establish that the application of the provision put him at a particular disadvantage when compared with those of a different age.

At the employment tribunal Mr Homer was successful. The PNLD was able to establish that its requirement for a degree was legitimate in order to facilitate the recruitment and retention of staff of a high calibre, but it was unable to go on to justify why it could not accept a lesser qualification and academic experience as it had done in the past.

At the Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT") the original decision was overturned.

Decision

The Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the EAT but for different reasons. The crucial question was whether the requirement for a law degree put persons of the same age group as Mr Homer at a particular disadvantage compared to those in a younger age group. The Court concluded that the answer was no because the disadvantage derived from the inevitable consequences of age. The fact that Mr Homer wouldn't be able to complete the law degree before retiring was because he would stop work before he could achieve the qualification, and not because of discrimination.

Comments

Despite the outcome for Mr Homer, this case means that employers will need to think carefully before requiring a degree level qualification and be able to justify it. Both appeal courts thought that there was the potential for more claims in the future from older employees based on the argument that it is easier for younger people to obtain a degree level qualification, as greater proportions of the population have access to higher and further education.