Young judges win pensions discrimination case against MoJ
<<The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) discriminated against younger judges by forcing them to leave their final salary scheme while protecting older judges, an employment tribunal has ruled.
The ruling, which confirmed there had been age, sex and race discrimination, could cost the government up to £118m.
The case could also have knock-on consequences for both public and private sector schemes where younger workers have had reduced defined benefit (DB) pensions than their older counterparts, or no access.
The claim was brought by six High Court judges and 204 Crown Court judges, district judges, sheriffs and tribunal judges, over transitional arrangements when the final salary pension scheme was closed in 2015.
The claimants had argued by forcing younger members to leave the unfunded Judicial Pension Scheme (JPS) in April 2015 - while allowing older judges within 10 years within pensionable age to remain - the then lord chancellor Liz Truss had discriminated against younger workers.
Due to the higher proportion of female and ethnic minority judges in the younger group compared to the older group, High Court judges Dame Lucy Theis and Sir Rabinder Singh also claimed indirect sex and race discrimination.
The JPS provided an income on retirement of a 40th of final pensionable pay, multiplied by the judge's length of service. Members also received a lump sum on retirement after age 65 at two-and-a-quarter times the annual rate. Prior to 2012, the scheme did not require employee contributions.
However, in 2015 younger members were forced to join the New Judicial Pension Scheme which is instead based on a career average accrual model. Employees are required to make contributions, and pension pots accrue at a 43rd of final pensionable pay.
The changes were part of wider reform introduced across all public sector pension schemes in 2015.
In a written ruling on 13 January, the tribunal agreed with the claims, stating the MoJ has "treated and continues to treat the claimants less favourably than their comparators because of their age".
Bindmans partner and head of employment Shah Qureshi, who acted on behalf of the High Court judges, said the government's reforms had not been legitimate.
"The lord chancellor has failed to justify these discriminatory reforms," he said. "These reforms not only discriminate against younger judges but also disproportionately impact on women and ethnic minorities.
"The protection of those closest to retirement at the expense of younger judges was not a legitimate aim nor was it proportionate. Indeed, the tribunal noted that younger judges compelled to join the new scheme are the worst affected by the reforms.
"The judgement also makes clear that there were non-discriminatory alternatives open to the government."
The MoJ had provided a transitional period for judges aged between 51 years and six months and 55, allowing them to remain in the JPS until September 2025 at the latest.
The tribunal added the MoJ had not considered how the cost of this, estimated at £23m, could have been used to provide equal alternative options to all JPS members.
Leigh Day associate solicitor Shubha Banerjee, who represented the 204 other judges, also welcomed the verdict.
"This is a great victory for our clients, many of whom sit alongside older judges who were appointed some years after them but who are, in effect, paid more purely because they are older," she said.
"The fact that there is a significant number of female and black and minority ethnic judges in the younger group simply compounds the unfairness of the changes that were made to judicial pensions."
A government spokesperson said: "We are disappointed by the court's findings and will be considering whether to appeal the judgment."
The case is similar to a separate employment tribunal case where the Fire Brigades Union is alleging members were discriminated against because of their age.
In the case, which is ongoing, younger firefighters were transferred from the Firefighters' Pension Scheme to a new scheme where they will work longer, pay more and receive a reduced pension than older firefighters.>>
I didn't know the FBU was going in to bat on this one. Apologies if you need a log in. Mods, in the event I've breached a copyright provision by pasting that, apols.
Firefighters' case flags age discrimination quandary in pensions