Woodcock v Cumbria Primary Care Trust: The Objective Justification Test for Age Discrimination

AuthorJackie Lane
Date01 January 2013
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12006
Published date01 January 2013
Woodcock vCumbria Primary Care Trust:The Objective
JustificationTest for Age Discrimination
Jackie Lane*
This note discusses the limits to the defence of objective justification when applied to direct age
discrimination, specifically with regard to situations where the employer attempts to rely on
cost-saving as a legitimate aim.The author examines the jurisprudence of the Cour t of Justice of
the European Union (formerly the European Court of Justice,ECJ) on which this case relies, and
considers whether the defence has been interpreted too widely, opening up the possibility of
cost-saving as a defence to discrimination on the grounds of this particular protected characteristic.
The note concludes that, while cost-saving cannot be the sole justification for less favourable
treatment by employers,it may nevertheless form part of an overall legitimate aim when coupled
with additional factors.
INTRODUCTION
The case of Woodcock vCumbria Primary Care Trust is an appeal brought by Mr
Woodcock on the grounds that he suffered direct discrimination by way of less
favourable treatment on the grounds of his age, and that the action of his
employer, Cumbria Primary Care Trust (PCT), was unjustified; he questions, in
particular, whether the need to save money can ever be a legitimate aim in
justifying age discrimination.This objective justification defence, now contained
within the Equality Act 2010,1has been extensively examined in the courts, both
in the UK and in the ECJ. It was famously challenged in the Age Concern case2
for being incompatible with the parent EC Directive 2000/78 (the Directive)
which, underArticle 6(1), appeared to permit only specific examples of defences
to direct age discrimination, namely ‘legitimate employment policy, labour
market and vocational training objectives’.3However, the UK consultation
papers on age discrimination, Coming of Age4and its predecessor, Age Matters,5
*Senior Lecturer, University of Huddersfield.
1 Equality Act 2010, s 13(2).
2R (on the application of Incorporated Trustees of the National Council on Ageing (Age Concern England) v
Secretary of State for Business, Enterpr ise and Regulatory Reform [2009] All ER (EC) 619 (the Age
Concern case).
3 Article 6 provides:
Justification of differences of treatment on grounds of age
1. Notwithstanding Article 2(2), Member States may provide that differences of treatment on
grounds of age shall not constitute discrimination, if,within the context of national law,they are
objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, including leg itimate employment
policy,labour market and vocational training objectives,and if the means of achieving that aim
are appropriate and necessary.
4Coming of Age at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/
file16397.pdf para 4.1.16 and 4.1.17 (last visited 27 April 2012).
5Age Matters at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/
file24331.pdf para 3.15 (last visited 27 April 2012).
bs_bs_banner
Woodcock vCumbria Primary Care Trust
© 2013 TheAuthor.The Moder n Law Review© 2013 The Modern Law Review Limited.
146 (2013) 76(1) MLR 134–157

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT