G’day. Or should that be G-Day? We’ve had A-Day – heralding “pensions simplification” (a false dawn if ever there was one) on 6 April 2006 – and now G(ender)-Day is upon us: 21 December 2012. From that day, regulations borne out of the Test-Achats case will make it illegal for insurers to base the price of pension annuities on gender, by removing the Equality Act exemption that has allowed insurers to calculate premiums and benefits on a gender-specific basis. (more…)
Archive for the ‘Discrimination’ Category
Gender-specific pension annuity rates illegal. Oh, and the end of the world…
Thursday, 13 December 2012Justifying Age Discrimination – more than just cost saving (but not much more)
Wednesday, 28 March 2012In my last blog piece I asked whether pension cost alone could justify discriminatory treatment in terminating employment. The answer is no, but it does help, the Court of Appeal has ruled: Woodcock v Cumbria PCT. Saving money can’t be the sole aim of a discriminatory practice – there has to be a non-cost reason as well. But it may not be particularly difficult to find that non-cost reason. If an employer can do that, then balancing cost factors against the effect of the treatment may allow the employer to justify its actions. (more…)
Age discrimination – justification on the grounds of cost?
Thursday, 8 December 2011Clients often question whether the costs that would result from changes made to their pension schemes to comply with age discrimination laws can be taken into account when determining whether the changes need to be made. How much weight can be given to costs to justify age discrimination? We should be finding out the answer to this soon, when the Woodcock case is decided. Recently the Chancellor revealed his plans to extend the country’s austerity programme and it is arguable that cost savings have rarely featured quite so prominently on the political agenda. (more…)
Equalisation of guaranteed minimum pensions: a blessing or a curse?
Wednesday, 24 August 2011GMP equalisation has long been the ‘elephant in the room’. Whether guaranteed minimum pensions should be equal for men and women, when the State pension they replace is not, is an issue that has, for one reason or another, remained unresolved in the 20 years since the Barber decision. That, however, looks set to change. Following Angela Eagle’s announcement in January of last year, the DWP is expecting, probably this autumn, to publish new draft legislation on the issue of GMP equalisation.
Executive ‘sacked for being green’ – are lifestyle choices protected by law? The decision
Friday, 13 November 2009I posted a piece last month on the case brought by Tim Nicholson following his dismissal by Grainger plc. He is claiming unlawful discrimination on the grounds of his philosophical belief about climate change and the lifestyle needed to avoid environmental catastrophe. The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now ruled in his favour on the question of whether his belief is within the protection of the 2003 Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations. It is – so he can pursue his tribunal claim against the company.
