“Supreme Court clarifies justification test for indirect age discrimination claims”
Mr Homer, a 62-year-old legal adviser, was prevented from reaching the highest salary grade because his employer introduced a law degree requirement shortly before his planned retirement. He could not complete the required qualification before retiring at 65, unlike younger colleagues.
Whether the imposition of a law degree requirement constituted unjustified indirect age discrimination against older employees who could not complete the qualification before retirement.
The requirement was indirect age discrimination but was justified as a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of ensuring legal advisers had appropriate qualifications.
This case provides crucial guidance on the justification defence for indirect discrimination claims and establishes the structured approach courts should take when assessing proportionality in discrimination cases.
You're reading the free summary of Homer v Chief Constable. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2012] UKSC 15, [2012] ICR 704
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.