Partner “forced out” wins case

A recent employment tribunal ruling against Walker Morris LLP, a prominent Leeds law firm, has underscored the risks employers face when enforcing mandatory retirement policies to oust senior staff. Martin Scott, a former senior partner, won his age discrimination claim after the firm blocked his request to continue working until age 65, prompting a unanimous decision from the tribunal panel that the firm’s actions breached the Equality Act 2010.

Mr Scott, who had a long tenure at Walker Morris as both a partner and head of its construction and engineering department, brought his case with the support of Milners Solicitors, alongside Counsel Darryl Hutcheon and Hugh Tomlinson KC from Matrix Chambers. Known for his expertise in high-profile construction disputes, commercial litigation, and fraud cases, he earned a spot in the Legal 500 list of top global specialist lawyers. In 2020, nearing 60, he successfully applied for an exceptional extension to stay beyond the firm’s retirement age, granted due to his “exceptional contribution”. However, in 2023, aged 63, his bid for a further extension was rejected, forcing his exit.

The tribunal, delivering its reserved judgment after a January hearing, found that Walker Morris unlawfully discriminated against Mr Scott by rigidly applying its retirement policy. While age-based discrimination can sometimes be legally justified, the panel ruled that the firm failed to demonstrate that its approach was proportionate or necessary. The judgment highlighted that less discriminatory options, such as tailored performance assessments, were available but ignored. It stated, “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.”

Giles Ward, a senior partner at Milners Solicitors, hailed the outcome as a vindication of Mr Scott’s “compelling” case. “This far-reaching judgment will be of obvious interest to law firms and other professional service firms across the UK with mandatory retirement policies,” he said. He pointed to the tribunal’s rejection of Walker Morris’ claim that older partners’ performance typically declines, noting that “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 ruling aligns with the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes, reinforcing the need for evidence-based justification in age discrimination cases.

The tribunal’s findings exposed ingrained biases at Walker Morris, with the judgment criticising “discriminatory assumptions about and attitudes towards older partners” unsupported by objective evidence. This, it said, epitomised the kind of stereotyping the Equality Act seeks to eradicate. A remedy hearing to determine Mr Scott’s compensation is scheduled for May in Leeds, where a panel, including an employment judge, will finalise the award. For now, the ruling stands as a stark reminder to employers that age-based policies must withstand rigorous scrutiny—or risk legal and reputational fallout.