Retirement age not unlawful - Heyday decision announced

The default retirement age of 65 is not unlawful but should be scrapped, a judge has ruled in the long-running Heyday legal case. Mr Justice Blake said the DRA was not unlawful when introduced by the government in 2006, but there was now a "compelling" case given the state of the UK economy for considering whether a retirement age is necessary.

His ruling means the Heyday case brought by charities Age Concern and Help the Aged has been dismissed. It is still legal for UK employers to force workers to retire at the age of 65. He said his ruling took into account the government's move to bring forward a review of the DRA from 2011 to early next year. Hundreds of retirement-related employment tribunal cases, which have been on hold awaiting the outcome of this legal challenge, can now move forward. Tribunals will have to take into account the judge's observations on the legality of a DRA of 65 in 2009 when considering these cases.

PwC discrimination claimant Mihaela Popa unlikely to get huge payout

A former forensic accountant at PricewaterhouseCooper (PwC), who is suing the firm for £40m in compensation for alleged discrimination and wrongful dismissal, is unlikely to get more than £25,000.

Mihaela Popa, a 31-year old Romanian, is suing PwC for victimisation on the grounds of former discrimination, unfair and wrongful dismissal claims, following a case that she lost in 2007. She worked for banks UBS and Credit Suisse after leaving PwC, but was made redundant from both jobs. She alleged that references from PwC and its influence over her two later employers had an adverse effect on both positions. On the first day of the tribunal, she claimed that derogatory comments were made about her when she was at PwC and these were communicated to her later employers.

Commenting, Chloe Pereira, employment lawyer at Loch Associates, said: "If Popa is successful, she is unlikely to secure the £40m claimed in compensation. In view of her redundancies, she is likely to recover – if successful – limited amounts in relation to her loss of earnings. "While discrimination legislation enables the tribunal to make awards for injury to feelings, the award is designed to compensate the claimant, not to punish the respondent.

The tribunal is likely to follow established guidelines for injury to feelings...therefore it would be very unlikely for it to award Popa more than £25,000, the highest level in the Vento guidelines and only awarded in the most exceptional of cases." PwC, which denied Popa's allegations, will be required to show the tribunal the references on Popa that it has provided. Pereira added that although Popa lost her 2007 case for discrimination, unfair and wrongful dismissal, "an employer will be at risk of a claim for victimisation if they discriminate against an employee or ex-employee as a result of – that person – pursuing a tribunal claim against the employer".

* Awards for injury to feelings are generally considered in three bands – known as the Vento guidelines, after decisions made in a case where a female constable, Angela Vento, was awarded £257,844 in compensation for sex discrimination and harassment by superiors at West Yorkshire Police. The Vento guidelines are the benchmark against which injury to feelings awards are assessed and cover a range of discrimination claims including sex, race and disability. The top band should normally be between £15,000 and £25,000. Sums in this range should be awarded in the most serious cases, such as where there has been a lengthy campaign of discriminatory harassment. The middle band of between £5,000 and £15,000 should be used for serious cases that do not merit an award in the highest band. The lowest band encapsulates awards of between £500 and £5,000 - amounts deemed appropriate for less serious cases, such as where the act of discrimination is an isolated or one-off occurrence.

Staff sick during holiday can reschedule holiday leave

Staff who fall sick during annual leave entitled to retake holiday - CAN OF WORMS!!

Workers who fall sick during annual leave should be allowed to take their holidays again even if it means allowing the days off to be carried over to the following year, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled. Previously, workers who were ill while on holiday had no argument for claiming annual leave entitlement back. But now the European Court has said workers are entitled to reschedule annual leave under the Working Time Directive (WTR).

The ruling follows a House of Lord's judgment in Stringer V HMRC earlier this year, which ruled workers can accrue holiday pay while on sick leave. The ECJ ruling goes some way towards answering whether someone who does not take their leave entitlement because of illness can carry that leave forward to a subsequent leave year - an outstanding question resulting from the Stringer case. While the answer is still unclear and awaits clarification from either case law or the UK government, Eversheds law firm warned employers to prepare for annual leave to be allowed to be carried over to the next year. "Employers that don't allow leave to be carried forward risk a tribunal finding that they have breached the WTR," an Eversheds employment briefing said. It added: "The mandate on sickness and holidays means that workers who are on sick leave have a choice. They can take annual leave if they wish, but if they would prefer not to do so they can insist on postponing their annual leave and taking it at a later date. This may include a subsequent leave year if it is not possible to arrange leave before the current year ends."

However, Owen Warnock, a partner at Eversheds, said there were still many grey areas. He said: "The danger of abuse is clear: an employee could increase his or her holiday entitlement by ensuring that in most years they alleged they were sick while on holiday. It may only be the occasional "bad penny" employee who does this, but the resentment that it would create with colleagues should not be underestimated. "Until the European or UK courts say otherwise, our view is that employers are entitled to require workers to produce convincing evidence of their illness while on holiday and that it would have rendered them unfit for work before allowing workers to reallocate holidays."

Teacher with Cancer sacked by e-mail

A teacher who claims she was sacked by e-mail while suffering from bowel cancer is suing her former nursery school for £25,000.

Melinda Bodnar, 27, was given a 30% chance of survival when she was diagnosed with the tumour in November 2008, and spent seven months on chemotherapy, according to the Metro. While off sick in March this year, Bodnar allegedly received an e-mail from the privately owned school telling her she was fired. The e-mail allegedly read: "You will see that you haven't been paid for this month – you have been on full pay up until now but I am afraid I cannot manage that any longer, as I am sure you will understand." The school denies disability discrimination and claims Bodnar resigned before being diagnosed with cancer. The case will be heard at a south London tribunal later this year.