Objective justification is what you need, if you want to stay on the right side of the law while treating people differently on grounds of age, unless you can claim:
- you are acting within the general exemption (see question 26, above);
- you are acting within one of the specific exemptions (see questions 24 and 25, above);
- you are complying with other legislation containing age restrictions;
- you are undertaking 'positive action' (see question 11, above); or
- you have a 'genuine occupational requirement' for somebody of a particular age - for example, a young actor to play Romeo in 'Romeo and Juliet'.
To prove 'objective justification', for either direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of age, you must be able to show that what you are doing is:
- an appropriate and necessary ('proportionate') means
- of achieving a 'legitimate aim' (see question 28).
To prove that what you are doing is appropriate and necessary, you must be able to show:
- that it will actually contribute towards achievement of your 'legitimate aim';
- that the benefits you expect it to produce are sufficient to justify the amount of discrimination you are prepared to practise; and
- that you are practising no more discrimination than is strictly necessary.
The consultative document made it plain that although 'objective justification' is described in very general terms, it will be hard to establish in individual cases. So if you have age-related practices that fall outside the general and specific exemptions, don't rely on being able to prove that they are justified - or not without consulting your lawyers first.
