Discrimination
Law firms should shy away from making “unfounded stereotypical assumptions” that a partner’s performance starts to drop away at a certain age.
In Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes the claimant, a solicitor, argued that the inclusion of a mandatory retirement age of 65 in his partnership agreement constituted age discrimination.
The original employment tribunal found that the provision constituted direct age discrimination, but said it was justified if it was assumed that performance begins to decline at that age.
Mr Seldon’s appeal was dismissed on al grounds, however, except for the performance provision, which the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found was not supported by evidence and based on stereotyped assumption.
Sian Reeves, of 1 Temple Gardens, says the ruling does not mean law firms have carte blanche to compulsorily retire partners when they reach a predetermined age.
Instead it means that firms should shy away from making unfounded assumptions that a lawyer’s performance automatically drops away at a certain age.
“To protect themselves from litigation by disgruntled partners, partnerships would be wise to consult with partners, remove from their partnership agreements any unfounded assumptions that performance tails off at a certain age and amend it to include justifications for a compulsory retirement age,” she says.
Reeves adds that the desire to promote congeniality within a firm can mean a lack of performance management controls within the partnership.
