Freshfields wins Bloxham age case...
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer has been found to have been proportionate in its controversial pension reforms that sparked a £4.5m age claim by former partner Peter Bloxham.
The Central London Employment Tribunal today handed down a judgment that found that the magic circle firm had been discriminatory in its handling of former insolvency partner Peter Bloxham, but that the discrimination was proportionate.
The tribunal said that it had unanimously found against Bloxham’s claims of indirect and direct discrimination.
Age bias differs from other forms of discrimination in that if it is found to be a proportionate means to a legitimate end, it is permissable.
The result is a boon to the firm, which is facing a similar claim to Bloxham’s from former corporate partner Lois Moore, now at Shearman & Sterling.
Bloxham, who is now advocate general for the policyholders of the Prudential, is currently out of the country and unavailable for comment. His solicitors, Dawsons, declined to comment.
It is therefore unclear whether or not Bloxham intends to appeal the case.
Co-senior partner Guy Morton, who was one of the witnesses at the hearing, said: “It is a pity that this misguided claim was ever brought to the tribunal. We are pleased that the tribunal has recognised that both the reforms to our partner pension scheme, and the procedures through which they were adopted, were fair.”
The nine-day hearing saw some of Freshfields most senior partners give evidence, including chief executive Ted Burke, managing partner Peter Jeffcote and global co-head of banking Perry Noble.
Freshfields was advised on the case by Michael Burd, head of employment at Lewis Silkin. Burd instucted Dinah Rose QC of Blackstone Chambers. The team is also advising Freshfields on Moore’s claim, with Herbert Smith senior partner David Gold advising Moore.
The Dawsons team, led by head of litigation Jo Keddie, instructed Tim Pitt-Payne of 11KBW.
Readers' comments (4)
Anonymous | 10-Oct-2007 7:24 pm
In response to Lawyer News Daily
It is not a question of Freshfields being "guilty, but.....". As you point out in your main report [see above], discrimination is permissible if it is found to be a proportionate means to a legitimate end. In short, such discrimination is not unlawful. We all discriminate to a greater or lesser extent. Maybe we choose our friends based upon their social or educational background. Women will often not go out with a guy who is shorter than them. Some men don't like fat women. Some people don't like the Birmingham accent (can't understand why). Such behaviour is discrimination, but it is not unlawful. So, Freshfields have not been "guilty" at all.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
City partner | 11-Oct-2007 12:50 pm
Pensions
The whole issue on pensions is really tough. You've got contractual rights on the one hand, but is it right that the past in the guise of older partners, is feather-bedded and the future, for the rest of us, is a rude and difficult place?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 11-Oct-2007 12:55 pm
Bloxham
Guilty is a pretty emotive word - for anyone vagely concerned with accuracy, age discrimination laws permit employers to adopt policies that could lead to some people losing out simply as a result of their age so long as they can demonstrate those policies were a “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”. The tribunal said that Freshfields policies “not merely met” but “comfortably passed” this crucial test.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16-Oct-2007 12:06 pm
Freshfields wins Bloxham age case
Freshfields may have won the lawsuit... but it is a phyrric victory. To have handled the process so poorly as to allow this to happen must surely raise questions as to the judgment of the management of the firm, their management abilities and the consequent impact upon the partnership ethos of the firm.
Whilst Freshfields may have saved a few pennies here with Mr Bloxham's redundancy, what it has achieved in winning is a rare double - significant adverse press couple with a perspective that the firm is uncaring and lacks compassionate. Freshfields has got itself into the invidious position of it ultimately (following any appeal) wins the law suit it loses and if it loses the lawsuit it loses. Brilliant management.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment