Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police · [2012] UKSC 15
UK Supreme Court · 25 April 2012
Mr Homer had years of experience advising on criminal law. His employer introduced a new career structure under which the highest pay grade required a law degree. At 62 he could start the part-time course. With four years needed to finish it and retirement due at 65, he could never benefit from the new grade.
The unequal effect of the same condition
The Supreme Court recognised a particular disadvantage to his age group. The difficulty arose because retirement left too little time to obtain the qualification and enjoy the benefit. A younger colleague who chose to leave for another job was in a different position.
Establishing disadvantage left an important question open. The employer had an interest in recruiting and retaining capable advisers. It still had to explain why insisting on a degree for this grade was proportionate to its aim. The court sent the justification issue back to the tribunal. Its ruling did not automatically entitle every experienced employee to promotion.
What would an alternative have achieved?
An employee can compare the skills required for the grade with the skills assessed by the chosen qualification. Would a recognised equivalent, an assessment of existing competence or a transition arrangement meet the same aim? Keep the grading policy and the reasons given for declining any alternative. The case arose under earlier age regulations and a retirement arrangement specific to that employment. A current enquiry needs the actual dates and rules applying to the person concerned.
Read the judgment in Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
Related reading · A shared promotion test in Essop
