The claimant worked as an Administrative Officer for the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP). She accepted voluntary redundancy 2007 aged 26 to the sum of nearly £11,000 in severance pay based on her 8 years' service. If she was aged 35 or over, she would have received a further sum of £17,690.58 pursuant to the scheme rules in place.

The claimant brought proceedings on the basis of direct age discrimination at the ET but was unsuccessful. The ET held there were material differences between the claimant's particular age group (under 35) and the age group relied on (over 35) and as a consequence the two were not actually correspondent. The ET also argued that even if it was found that the over 35 group were comparable, the respondents in this case had factually justified treating the claimant less positively then member of the over 35 group.

The claimant appealed the decision but this was dismissed by the EAT. The ET has based their findings on evidence indicating that the rationale behind differing payments was reflective of the increased difficulties faced by older workers caused by loss of employment when compared to younger workers. The EAT agreed with the ET finding that has an alternative decision been made, the respondent had suitably justified treating the claimants in a different manner. The respondent has implemented proportionate methods to achieve the legitimate aim of providing a financial cushion until workers found alternative employment. The EAT confirmed the decision was admissible because it related to a social policy aim of providing financial security that reflected the increased problems older women would experience having been made redundant. Direct age discrimination can be objectively justified dependent on the circumstances. http://bit.ly/19KQqSE