A LEGAL challenge by a solicitor forced to retire at 65 could affect every employee, a panel of top judges heard yesterday.
The government has intervened in the case of Leslie Seldon, who claims he was discriminated against on grounds of age when his firm, Clarkson Wright Jakes, asked him to leave at normal retirement age, in line with his partnership agreement.
Dinah
Rose, QC, representing the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which is opposing Mr Seldon, will argue during the two-day hearing at the Court of Appeal in England the case raises "important questions of policy and principle".
Robin Allen, QC, representing Mr Seldon, whose case is being backed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, asked the judges to view the new laws as if they were looking at cases involving the sex discrimination regulations in 1976 when they were first introduced.
He said many people found themselves "financially embarrassed" when facing retirement. Mr Seldon still has children at university and a disabled son who will never be able to support himself. "He needed to go on working," Mr Allen said.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission is intervening in a separate legal challenge next Thursday at the High Court over compulsory retirement in a case brought against the government by the charities Age Concern and Help the Aged.
The commission will contend that having a national default retirement age is not justified by social policy and should be outlawed as discriminatory under European Union law.
