Workers can be forced to retire at 65

MILLIONS of workers face being thrown out of their jobs when they reach 65 after a landmark legal ruling yesterday.

Millions face losing their jobs after new retirement ruling Millions face losing their jobs after new retirement ruling

Employers will be able to force staff to retire against their will if they can prove it will help younger employees, the Court of Appeal ruled.

Experts said the decision made a mockery of the Government’s plans – due to be announced today – to phase out the default retirement age of 65 next year.

The decision follows a legal battle by solicitor Leslie Seldon against his former law firm which forced him to retire as a partner at 65. His solicitor Jo Davis, of law firm BP Collins, said the ruling was “dreadful news for older workers” that would allow “forced retirement by the backdoor”.

Michelle Mitchell, director of charity Age UK, said: “It’s frustrating that while the Government is set to announce the end to automatic forced retirement a Court of Appeal judgment has given employers leeway to force people out on a case-by-case basis.”

The current state pension age is 60 for women and 65 for men, and is set to rise to 66 “no sooner than” 2016 for men and 2020 for women. But the coalition Government wants to increase it further, and that could leave millions of workers forced to retire at 65 but not allowed to claim their state pension for a year or longer.

Workers now face a bleak future in retirement with the state handout withering and dozens of generous company pensions being wound up.

It means millions who have toiled all their lives face a struggle to work longer to pay the bills. In yesterday’s ruling, the Court of Appeal found that Kent law firm Clarkson, Wright & Jakes was entitled to compulsorily retire Mr Seldon at the age of 65.

The action was justified because “it is in the interest of young would-be employees and/or actual employees that employers and firms should have a retirement age providing a greater likelihood of employment for young persons and reasonable prospects of promotion”.

Sir Mark Waller, dismissing Mr Seldon’s appeal, said employers who wanted to enforce a default retirement age (DRA) could rely on objectives that were beneficial to their own businesses rather than to “society at large”.

He added: “It may be thought better to have a cut-off age than force an assessment of a person’s falling off in performance as they get older. The policy required a cut-off age which some may consider too low but that does not mean it is not justified.”

Mr Seldon, now 69, said: “I’m very disappointed. Age discrimination is wrong but the court upheld the case against me on grounds of ‘justification’. But I’m not sure how they can justify what they know is wrong.”

His solicitor Ms Davis added: “This has handed employers’ retirement provisions a lifeline. An employer will simply claim that retiring their staff at 65 encourages younger employees who seek promotion and they will be all but home and dry. All round, it’s a mess and unlikely to be sorted out unless the case is appealed to the Supreme Court.”

John Wadham, the Equality and Human Right’s Commission’s legal director, who supported Mr Seldon, said: “People often need to, or want to, work beyond the age of 65 and age-related stereotypes about what people can and cannot do beyond that age are no longer applicable.

“It’s disappointing to see the court reinforcing the view that everyone should finish work when they turn 65, regardless of their circumstance.”

But the decision was welcomed by Caroline Carter, head of employment practice at law firm Ashurst.

She said: “If the DRA is removed, the Seldon case gives those employers a means to continue using a DRA, if they choose to do so.

“This could be a valuable way to ensure that businesses can offer much-needed opportunities to graduates and other new recruits, and plan for succession of senior staff.”

The ruling came as the Government today sets out proposals to supposedly end forced retirement, phasing out DRA from April 2011.

However, a spokesman for the Department for Business said: “We have studied this judgment carefully. We do not believe that there are implications for our plans to phase out the DRA”.

Would you like to receive news notifications from Daily Express?