Woman told to retire at 60 wins pounds 17,000
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A WOMAN who worked for a London charity has won pounds 17,000 compensation for being forced to retire before her male colleagues, writes Barrie Clement.
Mary Smith, a personal assistant to the chief administrator of the Royal Scottish Corporation, was made to leave at the age of 60.
She alleged unlawful sex discrimination because men were allowed to continue working for the charity until the age of 65.
The union, Manufacturing Science Finance, which backed her case, said the corporation sought to justify its decision by claiming that it had a policy of retirement at 60 for secretarial staff, while other employees could leave at 65.
However, Mrs Smith pointed out that of the 15 staff employed by the charity, all the men retired at 65 and all the women were made to retire at 60.
The claim, which could set an important precedent, was settled out of court and there was no admission of liability.
This is thought to be the first case dealt with in the industrial tribunal system since the Court of Appeal blocked compensation in a case involving Marion Bullock who was employed by a school. She was unsuccessful because her employer had had genuine difficulties in recruiting certain staff which the court said justified allowing a later retirement age.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments