The barrister who acted for the 5 respondents in the Watford Tribunal was Mr Peter Linstead of Tanfield Chambers:
Peter Linstead, the barrister who acted for 5 of the agencies, who chose to contest the case in the
To clarify the above: Miss Keane lost the indirect discrimination claim because she applied for the positions (if she had not applied but claimed, we believe her claim would have succeeded).
It was claimed that Ms Keane could not be a genuine job seeker because she was a 49 year old woman with a vast amount of financial knowledge and therefore not entitled to apply for jobs reserved for younger candidates. Secondly the Mr Linstead claimed in his summing up that Ms Keane had received settlement xxxxx when he knew this to be untrue or did not care if it was true or not.
Peter Linstead, the barrister who acted for 5 of those respondents in the Watford Case clarifies that “Newly Qualified”, “Recently Qualified” “2-3 Year’s PQE” etc are discrimination on grounds of age and are unlawful under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.
Justification: However, theWatford tribunal decided the use of these criteria was not justified……the Watford tribunal held that a proper minimum condition would be seeking someone “qualified”; “newly qualified” could not be a minimum condition. Further, the Respondents had not produced sufficient evidence to satisfy the test of justification
Rage Against Discrimination in Accountancy Recruitment
Here is formal confirmation from the barrister who represented these agencies at the Employment Tribunal that "newly qualified" "recently qualified as criteria in advertisements are discriminatory.
Legal Opinion from barrister who represented the five agencies who contested the case at the Watford Tribunal