Former officer wins key ruling over work bias

Terry Homer, who became a civilian employee after serving 30 years as an officer, was indirectly discriminated against by the force when his promotion was blocked.

It is the first time an age discrimination case has reached the highest court of appeal in the UK.

Mr Homer, a legal adviser to West Yorkshire Police, found promotion was blocked because he did not have a law degree.

At the time, Mr Homer was 62 and studying for a degree part-time alongside his job would have put him beyond the normal retirement age. It was argued this was indirect age discrimination.

He said: “I am overwhelmed with the outcome and feel I have been vindicated in my belief that I was being discriminated against.”

Mr Homer’s original Employment Tribunal hearing in 2007 found in favour of his claim for indirect age discrimination but the decision was overturned by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in 2008.

An appeal against that decision was turned down by the Court of Appeal in 2010 but Mr Homer was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which has now ruled in his favour. The case will now return to the Employment Tribunal to consider whether West Yorkshire Police could still justify its actions.

Mr Homer’s appeal, both in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, was funded by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

His lawyer, Neil Goodrum, said: “This has been a very important case, coming as it did soon after the age discrimination legislation was introduced, as it has established how careful employers must be not to discriminate indirectly.”

John Wadham, general counsel for the EHRC, said: “An employee’s ability to do a job should not be based on out-of-date assumptions about what people can do as they get older. Every employer must think carefully about whether it really needs to have a policy that directly or indirectly discriminates against people based on their age.”

A West Yorkshire Police spokesman said: “On a new and evolving principle of law the Supreme Court took a different view to the lower courts and has remitted the case back to the employment tribunal.”