Long awaited judgment from the Court of Appeal focuses on the merits of the ‘cost-alone’ argument.
The UK Court of Appeal released the much anticipated decision in Woodcock v. Cumbria Primary Care Trust. The decision centred on objective justification. Unlike other forms of discrimination in the UK, direct age discrimination can be objectively justified.
The objective justification test has two key elements: (i) does the employer have a legitimate aim and (ii) are the means chosen a proportionate way of achieving that aim, bearing in mind the discrimination to which it gives rise?
Whilst various factors can be used to justify age discrimination, the status quo position is that ‘cost alone’ cannot be used to justify otherwise discriminatory conduct and that more is required. This has become known as the ‘cost-plus’approach. ‘Cost’ is anything that has a purely financial consideration, i.e. the motivation is purely to save costs.
The Court of Appeal in Woodcock looked at the possibility of an employer justifying discrimination on a ‘cost-alone’ basis.
Background
Mr Woodcock’s employer (the Trust) was going through a reorganisation which would result in the reduction of chief executives required in the Trust. He was made aware that his role was ‘at risk of redundancy’ in early 2006 and he therefore applied for one of the remaining chief executive roles left in the new structure. Following a selection process, Mr Woodcock was informed in July 2006 that he was not successful in his application. He then entered into informal discussions about finding alternative employment in the Trust, although no formal consultation began.
In 2007, the Trust realised that Mr Woodcock would receive a significant pension windfall if he were still employed by the Trust on his 50th birthday. The windfall amounted to approximately £500,000. Given this potential windfall, the Trust elected to give Mr Woodcock notice of termination on the grounds of redundancy before entering into a consultation process during Mr Woodcock’s 12-month notice period. No suitable alternative roles were found and Mr Woodcock’s employment terminated in May 2007. He received his contractual redundancy pay of £220,000 (well above the cap for unfair dismissal of approximately £70,000).
Mr Woodcock was clearly discriminated against on the grounds of age. He received his dismissal notice prior to consultation because of the pension windfall he would have received at his attainment of age 50. If he had been a year younger, a consultation process would have been followed first. In order to follow a fair process in the UK, an employer should consult with an employee before deciding whether he or she is redundant.
Age Discrimination Justified?
At first glance, it is hard to see how this case turns on anything other than the Trust’s financial considerations.
The lower courts, however, found that the discriminatory treatment was objectively justified using the ‘cost-plus’ approach—the ‘plus’ being the genuine redundancy situation and avoiding the potential windfall.
Although possible to pigeonhole these facts into the ‘cost-plus’ test, the lower courts agreed that it was slightly artificial. One of the questions the Court of Appeal considered was whether age discrimination could be objectively justified on a ‘cost-alone’ basis.
Court of Appeal Decision
Although the Court of Appeal agreed that the current ‘cost-plus’ approach results in a degree of artificiality, it accepted that the current guidance from the European Court of Justice is clear, i.e. an employer cannot justify discriminatory treatment ‘solely’ because of cost.
The Court of Appeal, however, agreed with the lower courts and held that the age discrimination in this case was objectively justified on a ‘cost-plus’ analysis because (i) the dismissal notice was served with the aim of giving effect to the Trust’s genuine decision to terminate Mr Woodcock’s employment on the grounds of his redundancy and (ii) it was a legitimate part of that aim for the Trust to ensure that, in giving effect to it, the dismissal also saved the Trust the potential pension fund windfall.
Conclusion
It appears as though the ‘cost-plus’ approach is here to stay. The good news is that the courts appear able to find their way around the problem of having to follow the ‘cost-plus’ approach in most cases.
Despite the courts’ current flexibility, employers should remain hesitant to commit to a ‘cost-alone’ approach and should continue to look for the ‘further factor’.
Copyright © 2012 by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
