Woodcock v Cumbria Primary Care Trust

The Objective Justification Test for Age Discrimination

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This note discusses the limits to the defence of objective justification when applied to direct age discrimination, specifically with regard to situations where the employer attempts to rely on cost-saving as a legitimate aim. The author examines the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (formerly the European Court of Justice, ECJ) on which this case relies, and considers whether the defence has been interpreted too widely, opening up the possibility of cost-saving as a defence to discrimination on the grounds of this particular protected characteristic. The note concludes that, while cost-saving cannot be the sole justification for less favourable treatment by employers, it may nevertheless form part of an overall legitimate aim when coupled with additional factors.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)146-157
Number of pages12
JournalModern Law Review
Volume76
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2013

Fingerprint

discrimination
employer
costs
court of justice
European Court of Justice
jurisprudence

Cite this

@article{627cb4b4256e4092ba7351657ca832ac,
title = "Woodcock v Cumbria Primary Care Trust: The Objective Justification Test for Age Discrimination",
abstract = "This note discusses the limits to the defence of objective justification when applied to direct age discrimination, specifically with regard to situations where the employer attempts to rely on cost-saving as a legitimate aim. The author examines the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (formerly the European Court of Justice, ECJ) on which this case relies, and considers whether the defence has been interpreted too widely, opening up the possibility of cost-saving as a defence to discrimination on the grounds of this particular protected characteristic. The note concludes that, while cost-saving cannot be the sole justification for less favourable treatment by employers, it may nevertheless form part of an overall legitimate aim when coupled with additional factors.",
keywords = "Age Discrimination, Cost as sole factor, Employment, Objective justification, Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes, Woodcock v Cumbria Primary Care Trust",
author = "Jackie Lane",
year = "2013",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1111/1468-2230.12006",
language = "English",
volume = "76",
pages = "146--157",
journal = "Modern Law Review",
issn = "0026-7961",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

Woodcock v Cumbria Primary Care Trust : The Objective Justification Test for Age Discrimination. / Lane, Jackie.

In: Modern Law Review, Vol. 76, No. 1, 01.2013, p. 146-157.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Woodcock v Cumbria Primary Care Trust

T2 - The Objective Justification Test for Age Discrimination

AU - Lane, Jackie

PY - 2013/1

Y1 - 2013/1

N2 - This note discusses the limits to the defence of objective justification when applied to direct age discrimination, specifically with regard to situations where the employer attempts to rely on cost-saving as a legitimate aim. The author examines the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (formerly the European Court of Justice, ECJ) on which this case relies, and considers whether the defence has been interpreted too widely, opening up the possibility of cost-saving as a defence to discrimination on the grounds of this particular protected characteristic. The note concludes that, while cost-saving cannot be the sole justification for less favourable treatment by employers, it may nevertheless form part of an overall legitimate aim when coupled with additional factors.

AB - This note discusses the limits to the defence of objective justification when applied to direct age discrimination, specifically with regard to situations where the employer attempts to rely on cost-saving as a legitimate aim. The author examines the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (formerly the European Court of Justice, ECJ) on which this case relies, and considers whether the defence has been interpreted too widely, opening up the possibility of cost-saving as a defence to discrimination on the grounds of this particular protected characteristic. The note concludes that, while cost-saving cannot be the sole justification for less favourable treatment by employers, it may nevertheless form part of an overall legitimate aim when coupled with additional factors.

KW - Age Discrimination

KW - Cost as sole factor

KW - Employment

KW - Objective justification

KW - Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes

KW - Woodcock v Cumbria Primary Care Trust

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84871860258&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/1468-2230.12006

DO - 10.1111/1468-2230.12006

M3 - Article

VL - 76

SP - 146

EP - 157

JO - Modern Law Review

JF - Modern Law Review

SN - 0026-7961

IS - 1

ER -