Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2012] UKSC 15

In brief

The claimant was required to hold a law degree to reach the highest pay grade at work. He could not complete the degree before retirement at age 65, so the requirement excluded him. The Supreme Court held this was indirect age discrimination under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006. The provision, criterion or practice (the law-degree requirement) put persons approaching retirement at a particular disadvantage. The burden then shifted to the employer to show objective justification. The court clarified the PCP/justification framework for indirect-discrimination cases.

Key provisions

• paras-14-17 — The PCP/disadvantage/justification framework for indirect discrimination: Indirect discrimination analysis requires (1) identification of a provision, criterion or practice; (2) disproportionate disadvantage to persons sharing the protected characteristic; (3) if so, objective justification by the respondent. The burden shifts once particular disadvantage is established.
• paras-22-26 — Objective justification — proportionate means of achieving legitimate aim: Where particular disadvantage is shown the respondent must demonstrate that the PCP is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The court must evaluate whether the means are rationally connected to the aim, whether less intrusive means were available, and whether fair balance is struck.

When relevant

Any s.19 indirect discrimination case, Arguments about PCP framing and disadvantage pool, Challenges to respondent's justification evidence