Solicitor Wins Age Discrimination Case After Forced Retirement at 63
An Employment Tribunal has recently found that a leading Leeds-based law firm, Walker Morris LLP, unlawfully discriminated against a senior partner, Martin Scott after he was forced to retire at the age of 63 following the firm’s mandatory retirement policy.
Background of the Case
Scott had been a solicitor for 40 years and a partner at Walker Morris since 1992. He claimed that he was forced out of the firm in 2023 when his application to extend his tenure by another two years was rejected.
Walker Morris LLP, a top-100 law firm, had a policy requiring partners over the age of 60 to reapply to stay on, citing “intergenerational fairness” and the need to free up equity for younger partners.
Tribunal Findings
The Leeds tribunal unanimously agreed that Scott would not have faced the same treatment if he had been under 60. The tribunal found no evidence supporting the firm’s claims that senior partners were “hogging the equity” or that there was a need to free up equity for younger partners.
During his extended tenure, Scott’s financial performance was reportedly strong, but he faced criticism for his conduct and behaviour, described as “disruptive, uncollaborative, and corrosive.” Despite this, the tribunal found that the decision to deny his extension was part of a continuing act of discrimination.
The tribunal also noted a lack of evidence showing any deterioration in performance among partners in their 50s and 60s.
Discriminatory Assumptions
The tribunal highlighted the discriminatory assumptions made by former managing partner Malcolm Simpson, who suggested that partners’ performance and energy levels decline as they age. These assumptions were not supported by any objective evidence and were deemed to be the type of bias that age discrimination legislation aims to counter.
Commentary on the case
Walker Morris expressed disappointment with the tribunal’s findings and maintained that its retirement policies were intended to create opportunities for future generations. They also mentioned that Scott had previously benefited from these policies when his retirement date was extended in 2020.
However, Giles Ward, who represented Scott, stated that the ruling serves as a “warning bell” to other firms with mandatory retirement policies.
How we can help
This case reflects the current position in age discrimination law and is of interest to professional service which maintain mandatory retirement policies requiring or presumptively requiring partners to retire at a certain age.
If you are an employer or employee affected by the above issue and want advice or support in connection with the same, or any employment law or HR issues more generally, please do not hesitate to contact us on 01206 239761.
