Craig Gordon, of Abingdon-based employment law website www.hrbullets.co.uk, considers a new law on age

This October will see the biggest change in discrimination law for 30 years when the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations come into force. When a similar law was introduced in the US, there was a 40 per cent rise in tribunal claims and it seems certain the new rules will prompt a big surge in such claims here.

Recent surveys show that employers are unprepared and with barely five months to go, this is a worry.

There really is no room for complacency. Every aspect of the working cycle will need to be scrutinised for discriminatory practices, from recruitment, retention, training and pay, right through to retirement.

Employers who are currently ageist could fall foul of the law as existing ageist attitudes will be evidence that the business allowed discrimination on grounds of age and will put an employer on the back foot in defending claims when the new law takes effect.

An employer who has to admit that there was an ageist workplace culture in early 2006 will be hard pressed to convince an employment tribunal that everything suddenly changed on October 1.

Basically, the new law will: l Outlaw age discrimination in recruitment, promotion and training.

l Introduce a default retirement age of 65, and require employers to objectively justify any lower retirement age.

l Remove the current age limit of 65 for unfair dismissal and redundancy rights.

l Give employees the right to ask to work beyond retirement age and oblige employers to consider such a request.

l Force employers to give staff at least six months' notice of their intended retirement date Where an employee wants to stay on beyond the default retirement age, there is a specific duty to consider' procedure.

This is complicated beyond measure and includes lots of references to reasonably practicable', words beloved of the lawyer and which simply scream litigation.' One major difference from other types of discrimination is that direct age discrimination can be justified but only if an employer can show it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

This is no easy hurdle to overcome. Case law shows tribunals will expect to see detailed and convincing arguments showing the importance of the aim and that less discriminatory measures would not achieve the desired end.

The way age discrimination is defined includes discrimination based on apparent age, so people will be able to bring a tribunal claim, even if the discrimination was based on an incorrect assumption about their age.

Discriminating on the grounds of age could be very costly to employers.

There will be no upper limit on potential compensation, unlike unfair dismissal which is subject to a statutory cap.

Highly-paid senior executives in their 40s and 50s who are dismissed for age-related reasons will often find it difficult to ever get comparable jobs.

This means employers could be liable for huge awards of compensation, covering many years of lost income resulting from the discrimination.

Older workers will not be the only beneficiaries the law will apply to employees of all ages.

It will force employers to confront the prejudices that underlie age discrimination.

For example, the assertion that younger people lack the authority to deal with our clients;' or a middle-aged woman will never fit into our youthful atmosphere.' While some of these stereotypes maybe true, on average, that is legally irrelevant.

The law requires each person be treated as an individual, not assumed to be like other members of the group, whether or not most members of the group do have such characteristics.

As regards job applicants, it will not be discriminatory to treat them less favourably on the ground of their age where they are older than the employer's normal retirement age, or would reach normal retirement age within six months of their application.

Service-related benefits such as additional holiday or pay will continue to be allowed but only in certain circumstances.

Provided the award is for a period not exceeding five years then it will be fine.

For benefits awarded on the basis of more than five years' service, it will be legal provided it reasonably appears to the employer that using the length of service criterion fulfils a business need.

Examples of this include encouraging the loyalty or motivation, or rewarding the experience, of some or all workers.

n For more information see www.hrbullets.co.uk or e-mail enquiries@hrbullets.co.uk