Spotlight
Forensic & Insurance News
Contributed by specialist insurance legal practice Berrymans Lace Mawer
Case StudiesLaw degree requirement deemed non-discriminatory on basis of age
Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
(Court of Appeal — 27 April 2010)
Many employers require employees at certain grades to have degrees. In the case of Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire, the Court of Appeal had to decide if such a requirement amounted to indirect age discrimination.
Terence Homer, an ex-police officer, worked as a legal adviser with the Police National Legal Database. He did not have a law degree but was still qualified through his experience. The PNLD offered to pay for him to do the degree part-time. As Mr Homer would not finish the degree before he retired at 65, he saw no reason to do so.
In 2005, the PNLD implemented a new graded career structure. Mr Homer, who was 61, had his application to be re-graded to the top grade rejected as he did not have a law degree.
He then brought a claim for indirect age discrimination on the basis that his age prevented him from completing the degree before his retirement.
The Court of Appeal found against Mr Homer on the basis that the particular disadvantage to him flowed not from the fact of his age but from his imminent retirement.
COMMENT
Although this judgment will be welcomed by employers who require degrees at certain grades, it may not necessarily be the end of the story. Mr Homer did not in fact argue that those in his age group would find it more difficult to obtain a law degree, nor that they were less likely to have a law degree. Accordingly, these arguments still remain open to claimants in future claims for age discrimination. Andrew McDonald, BLM London
The following law report contributed by specialist insurance practice Berrymans Lace Mawer (www.blm-law.com) first appeared in Post Magazine on24 June 2010.
Disclaimer: The law report contains information of general interest about current legal issues, it does not present a complete or comprehensive statement of the law, nor does it constitute legal advice. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in any particular case.
![]()
