Law firm Walker Morris discriminated against a senior partner through a mandatory retirement policy, an employment tribunal has found.
Martin Scott was a senior partner at Walker Morris in Leeds, working as head of construction and engineering.
In 2020, he was required to apply for an exceptional extension to remain at the firm beyond the age of 60. This was granted as he had made an exceptional contribution, but in 2023 he was forced to leave after a further extension was refused.
Scott brought a claim against the firm for age discrimination, and the tribunal has now upheld this claim.
The judgment found that Walker Morris could have pursued a number of alternatives to compulsory retirement such as tailored performance assessments. It said there was very little, if any, evidence of the firm giving serious consideration to any other routes.
The tribunal heard that a new retirement policy had been introduced in 2018, and four partners had applied for extensions beyond 60. Scott was the only partner to have applied for a second extension.
One other applicant had been granted an extension to the age of 64 on condition he would not apply for another, and this meant he would retire just before his 65th birthday. This person was considered a ‘rainmaker’, meaning he brought a lot of money into the business.
The tribunal found that Walker Morris failed to produce evidence to justify its restrictive approach. It concluded that the policy was underpinned by “discriminatory assumptions about and attitudes towards older partners” which were “not supported by any documentary or objective evidence”.
A compulsory or forced retirement policy can sometimes be lawful if it has a legitimate and fair aim.
The case follows on from the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes, handed down in 2012.
A remedy hearing to decide Scott’s compensation will be held in May.
