Case Of Homer V Pnld

Facts

Mr Homer had worked for the PNLD for 10 years, following his retirement from the police force as a Detective Inspector, when in 2005 they introduced a new career structure for current and future employees. This structure constituted a three-part progression system, whereby to achieve the top (and highest pay) grade, it was a necessity to have a law degree. Mr Homer met all other necessary aspects to achieve the top tier, but did not have a law degree- nor had it been a requirement within his job as he had previously been deemed to have exceptional skills and experience in criminal law. Mr Homer objected to being required to study for a law degree. The normal retirement age in the PNLD was 65, and it would have taken Mr Homer at least
The claim was brought by the Chief Constable, who appealed against the ET’s judgement that he had been indirectly discriminatory towards Mr Homer on the grounds of his age. This appeal was granted, as the court deemed the new rules to be a challenge to all, regardless of age. Was there anymore?

The verdict of this case was later appealed in 2010 by Mr Homer. Heard in the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal, the judgements given by Maurice Kay LJ, Richards LJ and then Mummery AJ all affirmed the previous decision, contending that Mr Homer’s case was not one of particular disadvantage, but one of a claim for more favourable treatment on account of age.

Issues/Law- What does the law assume and why? – have I covered law relating to justification and discrimination?
The law influencing this case/of which the judgements were primarily made were the regulations found in the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations, specifically regulations 3 and 7. Regulation 3 provides that such discrimination is resultant from the implementation of a criterion to a certain age group, which if applied to anyone else would cause the age group concerned a disadvantage in comparison, and if the criterion cannot be proven to be a proportionate means of achieving a genuine aim. Regulation 7 states that it is unlawful to discriminate, amongst other criteria, employees such as Mr Homer in terms of opportunities
Firstly, the issue of discrimination- whether Mr Homer had been subject to indirect age discrimination, and secondly the issue of justification- whether the necessity to ascertain a law degree was required.

The Supreme Court, with regards to discrimination, found that a requirement- having a law degree, which works to the comparative disadvantage of a person approaching compulsory retirement age- because they won’t have time to complete it, is indirectly discriminatory. Lady Hale overruled the argument proposed by the EAT and Court of Appeal, that what put Mr Homer at a disadvantage was not his age, but impending requirement. Mr Lewis (the defence), through looking at the words used in regulation 3 (1)(b), argued that what put Mr Homer at a disadvantage wasn’t his age, but his upcoming retirement, and that retirement was comparative to anyone leaving work for any such reason, and that anyone in this position would be subject to the same disadvantage. In relation to this argument, Lady Hale firstly said that this would have alarming consequences for the law of discrimination generally, as this involves taking a particular disadvantage of an age group, which is related to their age and equating it with a similar disadvantage which is suffered by others but for a completely different reason (13). And further deemed it fallacious to accept that persons in this position were