Requirement to Hold a Law Degree was not Age Discrimination

In Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Homer, the Court of Appeal has held that requiring certain staff to hold a degree in order to attain a higher-paid grade was not indirectly age discriminatory in respect of an employee who did not have time to get the degree before retirement. In this case, the particular disadvantage suffered was not the result of age discrimination, but of the employee's impending retirement.

H, an ex-police officer, had worked as a legal adviser with the Police National Legal Database (PNLD) since 1995. In 2004, a new job profile stated that a law degree was 'essential'. H did not have a law degree but was still qualified through his experience and, although PNLD offered to pay for him to do the degree part-time, H saw no reason to do so as he would not finish the degree before retiring at the age of 65. In 2005, in an effort to attract and retain legal advisers, PNLD implemented a new, graded career structure. H, by then 61, had his application to be regraded at the top of the three new grades rejected as he did not have a law degree, one of the nine qualifying conditions. His appeal and grievance were also rejected. He lodged a claim at an employment tribunal, arguing that the requirement to have a law degree was indirect age discrimination because his age prevented him from completing the degree before his retirement.

The tribunal found that requiring those at the top grade of the legal adviser post to have a law degree put people in H's age group at a particular disadvantage as they could not achieve the qualification before retirement. Although the tribunal was satisfied that recruiting and retaining appropriate staff was a legitimate aim, the requirement to hold a law degree was not proportionate and upheld H's age discrimination claim.

PNLD appealed to the EAT and they allowed the appeal. There was no basis for the tribunal's conclusion that those aged 60-65 suffered any particular disadvantage – as all those without a degree are treated in the same way. Although the requirement imposes a barrier, it applies to everyone regardless of their age. The EAT considered that the financial disadvantage that resulted from the criterion was an inevitable consequence of age, rather than age discrimination, in that those closer to retirement have less time to benefit from it. H appealed on the basis that the EAT had misunderstood what the tribunal had found to be the 'particular disadvantage'.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the EAT stating that the only particular disadvantage suffered by H's age group was the inability to obtain a law degree before retirement. This did not result from age but from H's impending withdrawal from the workplace. The same result would follow for persons in the comparator group who also stopped working before qualifying.

The Court of Appeal noted, as had the EAT, that H did not argue that those in his age group would find it harder to meet the requirement as they were less likely to have a law degree, or that it was in fact more difficult for a person in H's age group to obtain a law degree. This means that these arguments still remain open to other claimants who find themselves in similar situations.

This sends a clear message to employers that insisting on academic qualifications that are not really necessary for a role is unfair and potentially discriminatory. Having to defend a claim of unfair dismissal could result in a Compensatory Award of up to £65,300 and there is no cap on the compensation that can be awarded in discrimination claims.

To comment on this article or if you would like further Employment Law advice on age discrimination or unfair dismissal, please contact Jenny Kinman who specialises in Employment Law by clicking here