Equality in Occupational Pensions — The New Frontiers after Barber

TLDR: Barber's success at the European Court of Justice (ECJ)' goes some way towards settling two crucial 'frc)ntiers' in Community equality law as discussed by the authors : the first is between 'employment equality' and 'welfare equality' provisions and the second is between the scope of Article 1 l9/EEC and the residual scope of the employment equality directives.

Abstract: When Douglas Barber was made redundant by Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance (GRE) on 31 December 1980 at the age of 52, his redundancy package included a statutory redundancy payment, together with an ex gratia payInent but excluded an entitlement to an immediate occupational pension (OP), which was deferred until his pension age of 62. A redundant woman aged 52 would, in similar circumstances, have received a smaller lump sum than Mr Barber but would have had immediate access to her OP. Mr Barber's claim under section 1(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 might well have succeeded, were it not for the notorious 'retirement provision' exclusion in section 6(4) of the Act. Mr Barber's success at the European Court of Justice (ECJ)' goes some way towards settling two crucial 'frc)ntiers' in Community equality law. The first is between 'employment equality' and 'welfare equality' provisions and the second is between the scope of Article 1 l9/EEC and the residual scope of the employment equality directives. This note considers the new demarcation lines established in Basber and the implications of Barber for UK OP schemes. Given these implications, a critical analysis will be made of measures and devices, including the prospective effect given to the Barber ruling, which might minimise the financial impact of the ruling and migllt, in the case of 'equalisation downwards,' snatch improved benefits from the victims of sex inequality.