Case summary: Palmer v RBS — age discrimination and voluntary early retirement
Was a failure to allow an employee to change her choice of voluntary redundancy to redeployment (in the hope that the redeployment exercise would take her from age 49 to 50, at which point she could choose the more favourable option of voluntary retirement) an act of age discrimination?
Not in the circumstances of this case, said the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in Palmer v RBS.
The claimant was placed at risk of redundancy with a number of other employees. They were all given the option of choosing voluntary redundancy or redeployment. Those over 55 were offered an additional option to take voluntary early retirement…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the No5 Chambers briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from No5 Chambers
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from No5 Chambers
The question of whether two parties have entered in to a binding settlement compromising a case is often just as (if not more) acrimonious matter as the substantive case.
Gypsies and travellers have played a major role in human rights litigation both in the European Court of Human Rights and in UK courts