- MR D O’DEMPSEY (COUNSEL) FOR THE v Respondent — 2020

Mr Coombes brought a direct age discrimination claim about the taper applied to his Civil Service Compensation Scheme efficiency payment when he was dismissed for ill health on 1 February 2019. The tribunal recorded that the scheme treated him less favourably because of age, because the amount payable fell as dismissal approached normal pension age, and the issue before it was whether that age discrimination was justified under s.13(2) Equality Act 2010. It noted that he was 64, in the Nuvos pension scheme with normal pension age 65, and that the efficiency payment was reduced from £17,463.52 to £2,906.07 by the 30/36ths taper.

The tribunal accepted that there was no evidence as to why the taper had originally been adopted or that it had been specifically reconsidered, and it also accepted the claimant's point that there was no evidence of compliance with the public sector equality duty in relation to the taper. It therefore treated the respondent's case as an ex post facto justification requiring close scrutiny. It nevertheless found that the respondent had established two legitimate aims: providing compensation to employees dismissed on ill health grounds who would not otherwise receive compensation for loss of employment, and bridging the gap between dismissal and normal pension age.

On proportionality, the tribunal held that a taper was a proportionate means of achieving the aim of bridging the gap. It relied in particular on the actuarial buyout comparison, which showed that the tapered efficiency payment broadly matched the amount needed to buy out actuarial reduction and obtain full pension at the relevant ages. The tribunal concluded that removing the taper would give those close to normal pension age a windfall benefit and would increase, rather than reduce, the disparity between those below and above normal pension age. The claim was therefore dismissed and no tribunal award was made.