The employment tribunal has ruled that the government’s transitional pension arrangements for judges amount to unlawful age discrimination, in an judgment that could have far-reaching consequences for public sector employers.
The tribunal’s judgment, published today, states that the lord chancellor and Ministry of Justice ‘have treated and continue to treat the claimants less favourably than their comparators because of their age.
‘The [lord chancellor and MoJ] have failed to show their treatment of the claimants to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.’
Six High Court judges, including Sir Rabinder Singh, were among 210 claimants challenging the lord chancellor and the ministry over transitional provisions regarding pension reforms.
Tribunal judge Stuart Williams reserved judgment following a seven-day public showdown.
Shubha Banerjee, associate solicitor in the employment team at Leigh Day, representing 204 claimants, said: ‘This is a great victory for our clients, many of whom sit alongside older judges who were appointed some years after them but who are, in effect, paid more purely because they are older.
‘The fact that there is a significant number of female and [black, Asian and minority ethnic] judges in the younger group simply compounds the unfairness of the changes that were made to judicial pensions.’
Leigh Day says today’s decision could have ramifications for other public sector groups, such as teachers, firefighters and prison officers.
The MoJ has been asked to comment.
Tribunal backs judges in pensions dispute
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire