Age Discrimination

[alan30]

My company, on safety grounds, has issued a policy that to drive on company business you must be at least 24 years old and have at least 4 years driving experience after passing your test. Does this fit with age discrimination legislation?

[Hawkwalk]

I would think this is more to do with cheaper insurance costs. Cant see it being classed as discrimination.

[brachiopod]

Quite happily - on the whole.

Experience is a great thing - hence you don't find many MD's (or the increasingly common 'CEO' s) under the age of 22 (unless your Dad is called Rupert Murdoch).

I would, however, think that "..at least 24 OR at least 4 years' driving experience..." would be a fairer assessment.

(have you ever seen an 18 year old drive a company vehicle ?!!!! - my god !)

[brachiopod]

Just a quick addendum - such a company policy could (should?) probably not be made retrospectively.

In other words, if you have previously driven on behalf of your company, and you are now affected by this ruling and suffer demotion / loss of earnings / or significant change in job description as a result, then you may have a case.

Any sensible employer would allow for this, and make the ruling for 'new starters' only.

[Oneeyedvic]

Q. Insurance companies not bound by the age discrimination regulations: a
problem for employers?
A. The issue of insurance cover for employees and workers has exercised many employers and recruiters, because insurance companies are not bound by the provisions of the age regulations. The cost of insurance for workers in certain sectors and age groups can often therefore be prohibitively high. Furthermore, case law on justification in other areas of discrimination law shows that employers cannot rely on considerations of cost alone when justifying indirect discrimination. This suggests that the cost of insurance premiums alone will not be an acceptable consideration when seeking to objectively justify a refusal to recruit a worker of a certain age or age group. However the judgment in the case of Cross v British Airways plc, in which the question of the justification of indirect sex discrimination was considered, throws a ray of light onto this question. It states that although cost alone is not sufficient justification, it may be able to be put into the balance together with other justification for the discrimination.