Ms R Sargent and Others v London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and Others (England and Wales : Age Discrimination) -[2021] UKET 2202235/2015- (1 October 2021)

Key Facts

Issues

• Whether the difference in pension terms between the Firefighters Pension Scheme (FPS) and the 2015 Scheme disproportionately affects women and constitutes a breach of the sex equality rule under Section 67 of the Equality Act 2010, and if there is a material factor defence under Section 69.
• Whether the less favourable treatment of the Claimants based on their age (excluding them from transitional protections) constitutes direct age discrimination under Section 13(2) of the Equality Act 2010 and Article 6(1) of the Equality Directive, and if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
• Whether the aim of protecting those closest to pension age and retirement from the effects of pension reform is a legitimate aim under the Equality Act 2010 and Directive 2000/78/EC, and if the transitional provisions are a proportionate means of achieving this aim.
• Whether the transitional provisions place female firefighters at a particular disadvantage due to their sex, and if the means of achieving the legitimate aim are proportionate under Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 and Directive 2006/54/EC.
• Whether the transitional provisions place black and minority ethnic (BME) firefighters at a particular disadvantage due to their race, and if the means of achieving the legitimate aim are proportionate under Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 and Directive 2000/43/EC.

Holdings

• The claims of indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex and/or race fail.
• The treatment of the Claimants by the transitional provisions included in the Firefighters Pension Scheme 2015 is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and, accordingly, the claims of direct age discrimination fail.
• The piggyback claims for equal pay fail.
• The claims for equal pay fail.

Remedies

• Since the female claimants did not succeed in their equal pay claims, the contingent piggyback claims brought by male claimants were also dismissed.
• The tribunal found no material factor defence for the equal pay claims, as the disparate impact on women and BME firefighters was objectively justified by age-related transitional protections. Consequently, the equal pay claims failed.
• The tribunal determined that the age-based transitional provisions, which disproportionately affected women and BME firefighters, were objectively justified by legitimate social policy aims. Thus, the indirect discrimination claims failed.
• The tribunal concluded that the transitional provisions in the Firefighters Pension Scheme 2015 were a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims, including protecting those closest to retirement and ensuring pension scheme sustainability. Therefore, the direct age discrimination claims failed.

Legal Principles

• The tribunal applied proportionality to assess whether the transitional provisions were a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of protecting those closest to retirement. The analysis considered if the measures were appropriate and necessary, balancing the social policy objective against the impact on the Claimants.
• The burden was on the Respondents to demonstrate that the less favourable treatment of the Claimants was objectively justified. The tribunal evaluated whether the Respondents met this burden by showing the transitional provisions were necessary to achieve a legitimate aim.
• The tribunal considered whether the Claimants had a legitimate expectation that their pension terms would remain stable. It found that proximity to retirement created a greater legitimate expectation for older firefighters, which the transitional provisions sought to address.
• The tribunal emphasized that the Government's aim to protect those near retirement must be established to a high standard of proof. This included demonstrating that the means chosen were both appropriate and necessary, not merely based on generalisations.
• The purposive approach to interpreting EU directives (e.g., Directive 2000/78/EC) was applied, focusing on the objectives of social policy and the need for national courts to align with the broader aims of non-discrimination while respecting Member State discretion.

Precedent Name

• Rosenbladt v Oellerking GmbH
• R (Lumsdon and Others) v Legal Services Board
• HK Danmark v Experion A/S
• Land Registry v Benson
• Lockwood v Department of Work and Pensions
• Hardys & Hansons plc v Lax
• Commission v Hungary
• Ingenioriforeningen I Danmark v Region Syddanmark
• Palacios De La Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA
• Essop v Home Office
• Tyne & Wear Passenger Transport Executive v Best
• Mangold v Helm
• Naeem v Secretary of State for Justice
• McCloud & Others v The Lord Chancellor and The Ministry of Justice
• R (Incorporated Trustees of the National Council on Aging) v Secretary of State

Cited Statute

• Equality Directive 2000/78/EC
• Equality Act 2010
• Directive 2000/43/EC
• Public Service Pensions Act 2013
• Directive 2006/54/EC

Judge Name

Passage Text

• The claims of indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex and/or race fail.
• The treatment of the Claimants by the transitional provisions included in the Firefighters Pension Scheme 2015 is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and, accordingly, the claims of direct age discrimination fail.
• The claims for equal pay fail.