Objective justification meaning

For trustees and managers of occupational pension schemes: Confirm that the scheme’s provisions, criteria and practices (PCPs) have been examined and reviewed to verify compliance with the non-discrimination rule. Where a PCP seems prima facie discriminatory and appears not to fit an exemption, raise with employer the question of whether an objective justification can be demonstrated. Understand how both courts and tribunals typically assess the objective justification defence in general. Do not treat generalisations or stereotyped assumptions as an adequate answer or satisfactory explanation...

Employment Judge Frances Eccles, sitting at the Glasgow Employment Tribunal, held that the MoD contravened the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, SI 2000/1551 by subjecting Major Charles Milroy to less favourable treatment than comparable full-time staff. As a territorial army reservist he was paid a reduced daily rate and denied entry to the armed forces’ pension scheme, per a judgment issued on 5 August 2024 and published on 12 August 2024. In the 5 August 2024 reasons, Judge Eccles concluded the claimant had been treated less favourably as a part-time worker because he was refused membership of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme 1975 (AFPS 75) and its successor schemes, and because a divisor of 365.25 was applied to calculate his daily pay, when contrasted with the approach to full-time comparators. Judge Eccles further determined that the MoD had barred Milroy—who served in the Territorial Army from 1982 until retiring in 2019—from joining the pension arrangements for military personnel, namely AFPS 75 and later iterations, purely on...

Original news O’Brien v Ministry of Justice [2017] UKSC 46 What was the background to the case? Mr O’Brien began serving as a part‑time Recorder in 1978 and continued in part‑time judicial office until 2005. Earlier chapters of this protracted dispute confirmed that part‑time judges should have access to a judicial pension, building benefits pro rata to the sittings they undertake against the sittings of a full‑time colleague. The right flows from the Part‑time Workers Directive (Directive 97/81/EC on the Framework Agreement for part‑time work), which had to be implemented in domestic law by 7 April 2000. Implementation in England was attempted via the Part‑time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, SI 2000/1551, yet regulation 17 carved part‑time judges out of their scope. In Ministry of Justice (previously the Department for Constitutional Affairs) v O’Brien (with the Council of Immigration Judges intervening), the Supreme Court held that part‑time judges are ‘workers’ for the Directive and that the exclusion said to be created by regulation 17 lacked objective...

In this issue: Brexit headlines Brexit SIs Post-Brexit guidance Constitutional and administrative law Judicial review Equality and human rights Information law Public procurement Subsidy control and State aid State security and intelligence Other Public Law news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Useful information Brexit headlines Commons Library assesses Murphy’s review on democratic oversight of the Windsor Framework The Commons Library has issued a briefing on the independent review of the Windsor Framework, commissioned by Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Hilary Benn MP, and chaired by Lord Murphy of Torfaen, with the report expected by 10 July 2025. Set up in February 2023 to revise the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland and prevent a hard border, the Framework is being scrutinised to identify how it can operate with support from all communities in Northern Ireland. The commission follows a...

Justification—the ‘justification defence’ This Practice Note explores the concept of justification—often termed the ‘justification defence’—within discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). It addresses what may amount to a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It assesses proportionality in cases of indirect discrimination (EqA 2010, s 19(2)(d)), including where the objective is to prevent discrimination linked to other protected characteristics. It reviews the notion of a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) and considers issues arising in relation to direct and indirect age discrimination (EqA 2010, s 13(2)) and the Heyday case. In doing so, it evaluates objective justification, defence (no discrimination), the burden of proof, the approach a tribunal should adopt, and circumstances where discrimination rights come into conflict. This Practice Note includes references to case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). For guidance on whether judgments of the Court of Justice are binding on UK courts, see Practice Note: Assimilated law—Assimilated case law. Domestic measures enacted to fulfil UK obligations under...

Margin squeeze Margin squeeze is a form of exclusionary behaviour aimed at rivals, intended to remove them or undermine their viability—either by driving them from the market or by deterring entry at the outset. Where a vertically integrated firm holds a dominant position in an upstream market for a vital input and also supplies that input to wholesale customers who compete at retail, it can have both the means and the incentive to exclude those competitors from the downstream market. The dominant firm compresses retail rivals’ margins by setting a high wholesale charge, a low retail price, or a mix of the two, thereby narrowing the gap between the cost of essential inputs and the price attainable in the retail market. Consequently, the spread between the dominant undertaking’s retail price for the product or service and the wholesale price it levies on its rivals is insufficient to allow an efficient retail rival to compete effectively. This weakening of effective competition downstream can, in turn, result in higher prices, diminished...

This Practice Note considers equal pay audits, under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) provisions providing equality of pay An equal pay audit is a mechanism employers use to spot possible workplace discrimination arising from unequal pay for equal work. Some employers choose to conduct them on a voluntary basis. Carrying one out can enable an employer to: demonstrate its commitment to achieving and promoting equal pay compare the pay of protected groups who are performing equal work investigate the cause of any gaps identified by reference to a protected characteristic (most commonly gender) identify steps to close any gaps identified that cannot be legally justified use the findings and action points identified as a risk assessment for pay structures reduce potential equal pay breaches going forward Most employers do, unintentionally, have some gaps in pay that are brought to light by an audit. While many of these might be capable of objective justification, employers may nevertheless be...

1 Introduction 1.1 This policy explains the Company’s stance on employee retirement. It demonstrates the Company’s commitment to an age-diverse workforce and to tackling age bias in retirement. The Company values every colleague, including the expertise and experience of older staff. 1.2 This forms part of the Company’s pledge to advance equality and prevent unlawful discrimination. When applying the retirement procedure, the Company will not discriminate, directly or indirectly, on grounds of age, nor on grounds of disability, gender reassignment, marital or civil partner status, pregnancy or maternity, race, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation. 1.3 The Company considers it appropriate to operate a fixed retirement age [ for [ set out details of relevant roles ] ]. This decision and the set retirement age will be reviewed periodically. 1.4 This policy explains the steps the Company will take as an employee nears the fixed retirement age, and outlines what is required of the employee...