This case involved an employee, who in 1991 at the age of 51, began working for the Police National Legal Database as a legal advisor. When he was appointed to the position, the role did not require a law degree or equivalent if the post-holder had exceptional experience or skills in criminal law combined with a lesser qualification in law. In 2005, the organisation introduced a new grading structure to improve career progression which required employees of the highest graded position to have a law degree. As the employee did not have a law degree, he graded at a lower position. In order to reach the higher position, the employee would have been required to study for a law degree part time alongside his work, which would take four years. He declined to undertake the degree because he could not complete it before his retirement on his 65th birthday and argued he had been discriminated against on grounds of his age. He issued proceedings under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006. Specifically, Regulation 7 of the Age Regulations made it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against employees in respect of, inter alia, opportunities for promotion or receiving of other benefits. The Employment Tribunal held that the employee had been indirectly discriminated against on the grounds of age, which was not objectively justifiable on the facts. The Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal both held that there had been no indirect discrimination, but that if there had been then it would not have been objectively justified. It concluded that what had put the employee at a disadvantage had not been his age but his impending retirement. Had it not been for that, he would have been able to obtain a degree and reach the third threshold. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruling overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal and the case has been sent back to the tribunal to ascertain whether the employer can justify the discrimination. It was found that those who not due to retire were not the correct comparators because Mr Homer "...was not being sacked or downgraded for not having a law degree. He was merely being denied the additional benefits associated with being at the highest grade." The Supreme Court ruled that the law of indirect discrimination is an attempt to level the playing field by subjecting to scrutiny, requirements which looked neutral on their face but in reality worked to the comparative disadvantage of people with a particular protected characteristic. A requirement which worked to the comparative disadvantage of a person approaching compulsory retirement age is indirectly discriminatory on grounds of age. Lord Mance commented on the difficult balancing acts that face employers: 29 "...if (as the Tribunal appears to have concluded) there was no objective need for an employee as experienced, skilled and knowledgeable as Mr Homer to have had a law degree in order to qualify at the third threshold, then there may have been employees, with more than five years to go to retirement and so with sufficient years ahead in which to complete a law degree, whose experience, skill and knowledge would also have made such a requirement unnecessary. An exception for Mr Homer personally, or a general exception for employees within four or five years of retirement age, could have discriminated unjustifiably against such younger employees on grounds of age." http://bit.ly/IRKFaC