The second case involves an allegation of indirect age discrimination. In HM Land Registry v Benson employees of the Land Registry applied for early retirement as part of a voluntary redundancy programme. If the Land Registry had allowed all of the applications to proceed, they would have cost the employer an additional £12 million which they had not budgeted for as part of the redundancy programme. The Land Registry therefore decided which applications to accept on the basis of which were cheapest to implement. This had a disproportionate effect on older workers, as they were more likely to be the most expensive applications and therefore not accepted. In turn, the employees claimed age discrimination.
The Land Registry argued that the age discrimination was justified because it was intended to meet the employer's legitimate aim of reducing the headcount within budget. The Tribunal accepted that this was a legitimate aim and found that the Land Registry's response was proportionate (and therefore justified) because there was no real alternative for the Land Registry (although it noted that this might be different in other circumstances).
The case is a helpful one from the perspective of employers as it recognises the fact that cost will often be a driver behind their decisions. However, it should be noted that there remains conflicting case law on the question of whether discrimination can be justified on the basis of cost alone, and each decision will therefore need to be assessed on its own facts.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
