U.K.: New Law will let 'Dinosaur' Bankers sue for Millions

· Rules allow unlimited compensation for ageism · Wave of claims expected in hire and fire cases LONDON (The Guardian), September 29, 2006: Middle-aged male bankers could be among the first to sue their employers using age discrimination legislation that takes effect on October 1, 2006. The corporate law firm Addleshaw Goddard has predicted investment banks could suffer a wave of age discrimination cases to match the run of sex discrimination suits that have grabbed headlines in the past few years. The firm blames the hire and fire culture that persists at many City investment banks and money brokers. Often younger employees are preferred to their older counterparts, who are shunted out the door when they begin to look tired. On October 1, the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 come into force as part of an EU-wide initiative to stop age discrimination in the workplace. Under the new laws, staff can claim unlimited compensation from employers found guilty of sacking them for being "too old". In many respects the law will give white middle-aged men - referred to by personnel departments as "pale, stale males" - the same clout as women and ethnic minorities who allege discrimination. Until now middle-aged male bankers suspicious that a sideways move or demotion is tantamount to constructive dismissal have tended to shrug and quit. A successful fight in an employment tribunal brings only a pyrrhic victory. As Jane Amphlett, a partner at Addleshaws, says: "Unfair dismissal claims have a compensation cap of £58,400, which for many bankers in their 40s represents only a fraction of their income ... However, with age discrimination rules allowing unlimited claims in the same way as the sex and race discrimination laws, multi-million-pound awards are possible." Meriel Schindler, head of employment law at City solicitors Withers, says the bank that allowed staff to call traders in their 40s "dinosaurs" and their equities desk "Jurassic Park" - according to a recent case she handled - would fall foul of the new law. Addleshaws meanwhile is advising its corporate clients to update their performance measurement tools to help avoid a rush of compensation claims. "They must watch out because there is always the opportunist who adds age discrimination to an unfair dismissal claim in the hope that something will stick," she says. The Employers Forum on Age, which promotes the benefits of older workers to employers, says attitudes among employers have been improving, but many have failed to address the issue internally. One result is continued resentment among younger workers towards their older and better rewarded colleagues. One of its recent studies reveals 70% of those aged 16-24 believe it is discriminatory to pay more to someone older. Experience, as far as they were concerned, counts for nothing, at least in terms of pay. Sam Mercer, the Forum's chief executive, says: "Ageism is still seen as not that bad like speeding. While racism and sexism are viewed like drunk driving - totally unacceptable." The Third Age Employment Network, the campaigning charity, says unscrupulous employers have already been using the law to downgrade benefits to older workers. Its spokesman Keith Frost says: "We have anecdotal reports from callers to our information line that some employers are using the bogus excuse of the regulations to take away benefits from staff who have stuck with them longest." The regulations only give an automatic exemption for employee benefits based on up to five years of service. However, Mr Frost says: "It shouldn't be very difficult for an employer who already gives additional benefits for long service beyond that to be able to maintain them. The regulations require a much lower test for whether an employer is justified in offering them." By Phillip Inman © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006