Lawyers give mixed response to Woodcock age discrimination ruling

  • Print
  • Comments (3)

Readers' comments (3)

  • What reason doesn't come down to cost??!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is quite difficult to follow.
    Does it mean that employers can sack pregnant women because filling places for those on maternity leave and juggling things so that they can work part time when they come back is more expensive?
    Mmmm. Thought not. Where's the equality in that exactly?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Perhaps this is what Clifford Chance is banking on so as to make redundant experienced associates and have thier work done by NQs. Must be a big cost saving in there - so no age discrimination. Just imagine the fun we can have with sacking partners just before they hit the equity plateau etc etc.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (3)