Seldon V. Homer Case Summary

This case concerns Mr Homer, a 51-year-old who retired from the police force in October 1995, and his numerous appeals against the holding of the Court of Appeal that there was no indirect discrimination with regard to his age. The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police appeals against the decision made that if there had been indirect discrimination, it could not be justified in this case. The case of Seldon V Clarkson Wright and Jakes [2012] UKSC 16 ran alongside however it was concerned with direct discrimination of age. The case of Mr Homer reached the Supreme Court before justices: Lord Hope (Deputy President), Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Mance and Lord Kerr on appeal from: [2010] EWCA Civ 419.

Mr Homer left the police force with the rank of Detective Inspector. He was immediately employed as a legal advisor with the Police National Legal Database (PLND) offering legal advice to organisations within the criminal justice system. When he was first appointed, a law degree or equivalent was not essential to his employment as long as he had exceptional

experience in criminal law as well as a lesser qualification in law. Mr Homer was granted this on the grounds of the experience gained and examinations passed within the police force. Prior to his employment, a law degree became an essential criterion for work as a legal advisor with the PLND. This did not immediately affect Mr Homer. He was never given any indication that a law degree was of any concern to the PLND or further affect his employment with them.

Through issues in recruitment of suitably qualified candidate the PLND had to employ a new career framework, this allowed opportunities for progression and competitive salaries.

The PLND was, however, encouraged to maintain existing employees such as Mr Homer in spite of his lack of a law degree or equivalent. In 2005, this framework was introduced whereby there was three ranks above the introductory grade. To achieve the third rank, it was necessary to have a law degree or similar completed and it was deemed, in 2006, that Mr Homer did not. Instead he was limited to merely the first and second rank because of his lack of a law degree regardless of the fact he met all other criteria. The business director of PLND supported his application to be eligible for the third rank but was restricted by the rules to grant his progression, therefore, she supported his internal appeal which was disallowed in May

2006.

In May 2006, Mr Homer was aged 62. It was expected by both parties he would retire at the normal retirement age of 65. If he were to undertake a law degree to achieve to the third rank it would be likely that it would exceed his employment anyway. Mr Homer continued to make several more internal appeals and issued a formal complaint all of which were rejected, in April 2007 he began proceedings regarding unlawful age discrimination under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/1031), this began enforcement on 1 October 2006.

It was held through the Employment Appeal Tribunal the Mr Homer had not been indirectly discriminated against due to his age, it was the fact that his retirement was imminent that put him at a disadvantage. If Mr Homer had been discriminated against the Employment Appeal Tribunal stated that it would not have been justified. Both Mr Homer’s appeal and the respondent’s cross-appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.