Age Equality and Retirement: Squaring the Circle
本文评析英国最高法院关于年龄歧视与退休的判决，探讨年龄平等与组织需求间的平衡，并质疑法院结论，提出代际团结与反思性比例审查可能更公正。
In Seldon (and the joined case of Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, which will be the subject of a separate note in the ILJ), the Supreme Court had its first chance to address questions of age discrimination and retirement, following a raft of cases in the lower courts and at the CJEU. The case raises broad questions regarding age discrimination and the justification of retirement. In essence, the difficulty which arises is the tension between upholding the principle of age equality, whilst recognising the need to hold it in balance with the needs of organisations and other workers, particularly younger workers. The case turns on the precise legal questions referred relating to the aims pursued by the retirement policy, and it resolves some previously contested questions about the legitimacy of aims such as intergenerational fairness and dignity at work. What is not so conclusively decided is whether reliance on those aims was proportionate on the facts. This commentary reviews the case as well as making reference to the subsequent decision of the CJEU in the Swedish case of Hörnfeldt v Meddelande.1 The case is set in its legislative context, and the conclusion of the court is questioned. It is suggested that an alternative legitimate aim of intergenerational solidarity, and a reflexive proportionality review, may better achieve a just outcome to the conundrum posed by retirement in the context of age equality.