Is it discriminatory to exclude over 35s from police recruitment?

In the UK applicants for police recruitment have to be at least 18 years old. There is no upper age limit but the normal retirement age is 60. Eligibility requirements also cover such matters as nationality, criminal record, tattoos, financial status, physical fitness, health and eyesight.

In Gorka Salaberria Sorondo v Academia Vasca de Policia y Emergencias the European Court of Justice (CJEU) was asked to consider whether an age limit of 35 for a competition for recruitment to the Basque Police was discriminatory on the ground of age. Mr Sorondo brought proceedings in the Spanish High Court concerning the decision of the Director-General of the Basque Police and Emergency Services Academy, objecting to the conditions for participation in the competition and, in particular, the requirement of candidates to be under 35 years old. He was over 35 and claimed that there was no justification for the age limit imposed.

Local legislation provided as follows:
A candidate for recruitment as a police officer must be aged 18 or over and under 35. However, with respect to recruitment to local forces, the upper age limit may be revised taking into account services provided within the local administration, in the local police forces.
The High Court referred the question to the CJEU, noting as it did so that there was a previous ruling that an upper age of 32 years for the recruitment of Basque police officers complied with the requirements of proportionality and that a similar decision permitted a limit of 30 years for intermediate career posts in a fire service.

Taking recruitment a step too far!

Recruitment firm ‘Matching Models’ has recently come under fire for posting a job advertisement requesting that applicants are ‘attractive women’ only and have even specified what bra size the successful applicant should be.

The advertisement in question specified that applicants for a PA position should have “a classic look, brown long hair with b-c cup”. It went on to state that the job would be based in the countryside and that “a lady with no commitments would seem to match our client expectations”. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) called the advertisement “appalling, unlawful and demeaning to women”. Women’s rights campaigners have also criticised the firm with Sam Smeathers (Chief Executive of the Fawcett Society) stating:

It is extraordinary that they are taking this approach and almost certainly falls foul of equality legislation. If we ever wonder why the battle for gender equality hasn’t been won, this is a timely reminder.

Matching Models is also recruiting a "sexy female driver" to drive a Porsche Cayenne two days a week for between £40,000 and £50,000-a-year for a Knightsbridge-based businessman and polo team owner.

recoupment of recruitment costs

Cleeve Link Ltd v Bryla concerned the question of the enforceability of a clause seeking to recoup recruitment costs from an employee, and clearly establishes that an Employment Tribunal is entitled to consider whether or not such a clause is unenforceable as a penalty.
It arose in the case of Ms Bryla, a care worker recruited from Poland. Her contract of employment incorporated a term entitling her employer to recover all of its recruitment costs, which included an agency fee of £400 and her airfare, if she left within the first 6 months of her employment. The clause provided that after 6 months’ employment, the proportion recoverable would reduce gradually to zero over the next half year (reducing by one-sixth each month). Ms Bryla left the job after only 12 weeks, when she was dismissed without notice for misconduct following an altercation about her working hours. She was owed £1,203.35 for unpaid wages but was paid nothing.
An employment judge found that the clause was unenforceable as a penalty, despite finding that the clause represented a genuine pre-estimate of the costs of recruitment incurred by the employer. The Employment Apppeal Tribunal overturned this. On the facts as found by the Employment Judge, the clause did not amount to an unenforceable penalty but a genuine liquidated damages clause. However it firmly rejected the employer’s suggestion that an Employment Tribunal has no jurisdiction to find a penalty clause unenforceable.
It seems to me that the deduction contemplated by the contract must be a lawful deduction. If it is a penalty clause, it is not a lawful deduction, and I cannot accept [Cleeve Link’s] argument that it is not within the province of the Employment Tribunal to decide this matter. This is no different to a number of other aspects of a contract of employment that fall to be considered, construed and adjudicated upon in the context of the statutory jurisdiction.

controversial recruitment practice at Bristol City Council

Bristol City Council has caused a furore by banning white people from applying for a traineeship because it wants to boost staff diversity. According to a report in the Daily Telegraph the two-year training opportunity is only open to people from black or ethnic minority backgrounds because the “normal recruitment process was not rectifying” under-representation.…

Can you discriminate against a ‘non-disabled’ employee on grounds of disability?

 So, here we are: January. Christmas has come and gone and the warm lights of December have been replaced with the wind and rain of January. Sigh. But anyway, how was your Christmas? I hope it was a time of rest and good health.

My Christmas? As usual, it was filled with random discussions around the Christmas dinner table including, as ever, conversations about weird and wonderful Employment Law cases. In particular, some of my family members were shocked to hear that a non-disabled employee can suffer disability-related discrimination. One even suggested that I make the subject into a blog when I returned to work and, me being me, I couldn’t resist such an invitation…

So what am I talking about? Well, this was the case of Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey which concerned a female police officer who applied for a job in another police force. The police officer had a progressive hearing condition with tinnitus which, going forward, would continue to worsen. When originally recruited for her current police force, she failed the meet the usual criteria for police recruitment due to her low level of hearing but, after the police force arranged a practical functionality test, she was passed for duty and assigned for front-line duties. There were no concerns over her performance during her time in the role.

The issues started in 2013 when she applied to transfer to a new police force. As was standard, she attended a pre-employment health assessment. The medical practitioner concluded that, whilst her hearing level was technically just outside the usual police force parameters, she performed her current role with no difficulties and a practical functionality test was recommended. However, the new police force refused to follow this recommendation and, instead, declined her request to transfer due to her hearing below the recognised standard and, rather importantly, commented that it would not be appropriate to accept a candidate outside of the recognised standard of hearing because of the risk of increasing the pool of police officers placed on restricted duties.

Can an employee be disciplined for looking for another job?

Job Application Form You’d think this would be a weird question but I actually get asked this question on a fairly regular basis. Thankfully, I mostly get asked it by employees rather than employers but, in saying that, I can recall two employers (at a past law firm) that asked me this exact question.

The answer? Quite simply: it depends. It depends on the circumstances but, theoretically, yes, an employee can be disciplined for job hunting. In practice, however, it would be a rare occasion where an employer could safely do so.

To explore the dividing line, let’s look at three examples.

Solving the riddle – Uber, Addison Lee, workers, employees and the self-employed

Confusing road sign The media has been awash with stories about ‘worker’ status recently. The most obvious being the recent Employment Tribunal decision that Addison Lee drivers are workers, not self-employed as the private hire taxi firm argued, and the similar decision against Uber a few months ago. The appeal for the Uber case was heard last week in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, albeit the decision will probably be announced in December.

So then, you may conclude, all taxi drivers are workers? No. Okay, so most of them are self-employed? No. Well, they must be full employees then? Not really.

To get into this, we should acknowledge one thing. The definition of “worker” in the Employment Rights Act 1996 is purposefully fuzzy. No, that’s not legal jargon, but an acknowledgement that the status is meant to catch those people who fall between the more obvious categories of employee and self-employed. Stereotypically-speaking, employees are those who work in an office on a rolling contract for a specified number of hours per week and self-employed individuals work for their own business and are ‘their own boss’. Now, in practice, it isn’t that simple, but let’s use those examples as vague signposts for now because, otherwise, I’ll need to name enough qualifications and exceptions to fill an employment textbook chapter!

So, ‘worker’ status is designed for those who aren’t ‘full’ employees or self-employed. But where is the line? Where does a ‘worker’ merge into an employee and when does a ‘worker’ get so far as to be effectively self-employed?

These are very good questions. In fact, they are such good questions that a lot of employers, including Uber, Addison Lee and Deliveroo, end up finding out at Employment Tribunal precisely because it is hard to specify otherwise.

Disability Discrimination: Adjustments for candidate with Asperger’s Syndrome

In the recent case of Government Legal Services v Brookes UKEAT/0302/16, the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) upheld the decision of the Employment Tribunal (ET) that requiring a job applicant with Asperger’s to take a multiple-choice test as part of the recruitment process, amounted to indirect discrimination.

Background

The facts of the case were that the Government Legal Service (GLS) was recruiting lawyers in what the EAT later called “a fiendishly competitive recruitment process”. Applicants would be required to complete and pass a multiple choice ‘Situational Judgment Test’ (SJT), in order to be invited for interview.

Prior to commencing the test the Claimant, Ms Brookes, contacted the GLS and asked if adjustments could be made due to her Asperger’s – in particular, she asked if she could give her answers in a short narrative format rather than multiple choice so that she was not placed at a disadvantage.

Unfortunately, the GLS advised her that an alternative test format was not available, however did state that additional time allowances might be permitted for tests taken at a later stage following the successful completion of the entry tests.  The Claimant therefore completed the SJT in its existing format and failed, albeit she scored just 2 points under the pass mark required.

Ms Brookes brought claims of indirect disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments at the ET, arguing that the multiple-choice format of the test placed her at a disadvantage in comparison to other candidates who did not suffer from Asperger’s.  She further claimed that there could be no justification for this, and no reasonable adjustments had been made to the process.

The decisions