Tribunal rules law firm discriminated against partner because of his age

A former partner of a Leeds law firm has won an age discrimination employment tribunal after a unanimous panel ruling.

Following the hearing which concluded in January, a reserved judgment has been made on partner Martin Scott’s claim that Walker Morris LLP unlawfully discriminated against him by using its mandatory retirement policy to block his application to remain with the firm until he was 65.

Scott – who was represented throughout his claim by Milners Solicitors and Counsel Darryl Hutcheon and Hugh Tomlinson KC at Matrix Chambers – had served Walker Morris for 29 years as both a partner and head of the firm’s construction and engineering department.

He had significant and extensive experience in dealing with high-profile construction and engineering disputes, commercial litigation and dispute resolution, major case group actions and fraud.

The tribunal heard that in 2020, under company rules, he was required to apply for an exceptional extension to remain at the firm beyond the age 60 which was granted on the grounds that he had made an “exceptional contribution”.

But, in 2023 at the age of 63, he was denied a further extension to his position as a partner and was forced to leave the firm because of his age, the panel was told.

In its published judgment, the panel unanimously concluded that the firm had unlawfully discriminated against Scott because of his age in violation of the Equality Act 2010.

While direct discrimination on grounds of age can in relatively narrow circumstances be justified, the tribunal found Walker Morris had failed to produce evidence to show its restrictive approach was reasonably necessary and concluded that several less discriminatory alternatives had been available.

The tribunal found specifically that Walker Morris’ approach was underpinned by “discriminatory assumptions about and attitudes towards older partners” which were “not supported by any documentary or objective evidence” and represented “the type of assumption that the age discrimination legislation is designed to counter”.

A spokesman for Walker Morris responded: “We are disappointed by the findings of the Employment Tribunal and will be considering our response.

“In common with other professional services firms, our Partnership has agreed rules covering the retirement of Partners which we follow in a full and fair manner.

“These rules were intended to open-up partnership opportunities for future generations. Mr Scott voted in favour of changes to our retirement rules and indeed benefitted from them when his retirement date was extended in 2020.”

Giles Ward, a senior partner with Yorkshire solicitors Milners, headquartered also in Leeds, said he welcomed the ruling which he added fully vindicated his client’s “compelling” case, and said it served as a warning bell to others.

He said: “This far-reaching judgment will be of obvious interest to law firms and other professional service firms across the UK with mandatory retirement policies.

“In a written summary of its findings, the tribunal indicated that the suggestion by senior management at Walker Morris that the performance of many, or even most, partners begins to decline in the latter years of their career was not supported by any documentary or objective evidence.

“In the Tribunal’s view, those views were based upon assumptions and stereotypes about age and about partners’ performance and energy as they get older.”

The published ruling states: “Much of the respondent’s evidence on justification did not get beyond broad assertions, some of which were based upon discriminatory assumptions, for example in relation to the perceived reduction in energy levels in older partners.”

A ruling on compensation for Scott will be made by a panel including an employment judge following a remedy hearing to be held in Leeds in May.