Long Service Ticking Timebomb – Less Than a Month to Go
Client Alert | 2 min read | 09.15.06
Now is the time to make final preparations for the new Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 which come into force in less than one month. The legislation protects employees of all ages, old and young.
Key situations which you should keep an eye out for include:
- Job advertisements which specify a required number of years' experience, since experience can be equated with age. Also be careful how you describe the successful candidate. Advertisements which require employees to be ‘dynamic' or ‘energetic' as well as advertisements requiring a ‘youthful appearance' or ‘mature outlook' may be deemed discriminatory.
- Watch out for workplace ‘banter'. Although it is currently common for there to be workplace banter surrounding employee birthdays, this should not be encouraged; an employee may claim that the ‘over the hill' card she received on her 50th birthday evidenced that age was the real reason for her selection for redundancy.
- Although the statutory redundancy payment structures remain the same, selection for redundancy may prove more onerous. Consider whether your selection procedures need changing in the light of the new legislation.
- If an employee raises a complaint that they were discriminated against on the grounds of age, be aware that if they are consequently dismissed, not promoted or subject to any other detriment as a result of this complaint, they will have a successful victimisation claim.
In certain circumstances, it will be possible to justify discriminatory actions. You must be able to show that the discrimination was proportionate to your organisation's aim. This is known as objective justification. The discriminatory effects will be balanced against the objective's importance. You may be able to show, for instance, that the discrimination is necessary for implementing aims such as training needs, manpower planning or to encourage loyalty in your workforce. However, the defence is limited, and you must always be able to show that you could not have achieved the aim in a less discriminatory way. Note that this defence is not available to claims of harassment or victimisation. There is also a ‘genuine occupational requirement' exemption. This has extremely limited application. In practice, its application may be confined to models and actors.
You should also consider your contractual retirement age carefully. Retirement ages at or above the age of 65 remain lawful. However, if your organisation has a retirement age of under 65, this will now need to be changed.
As ever, ensure that selection criteria for recruitment, promotion, training opportunities and redundancies are non-discriminatory, transparent, well documented, and applied in a fair and consistent manner.
To ensure that you do not fall foul of the legislation, it is important that you have a good age discrimination policy and educate your workforce on equal opportunities. Check existing policies and look at monitoring your organisation's benefits structure and training opportunities.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26


