A 44-year-old graduate who had been a mature student, obtaining her degree at 38, applied for the post of careers adviser, even though the preferred age was stated in the advertisement to be 27-35 years. In all other respects she was well-qualified for the post. She was not selected for interview and complained to an industrial tribunal that the preferred age range was a requirement discriminating against women who had been mature students, contrary to section l(b) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.

The tribunal agreed that from the evidence presented, there were nationwide more male mature students aged 30 and under than female. This imbalance was not corrected until the group of students reached 30 or more. It therefore followed that the proportion of female mature graduates who could comply with the age requirement was smaller.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal reversed this decision, arguing that the age requirement did not discriminate against women. The tribunal should not have selected simply the group of mature students as the pool for comparison, since the advertisement was directed to all graduates aged between 27 and 35 who had relevant qualifications, whether they had been mature students or not. The tribunal had interpreted the advertisement to mean “a graduate preferably aged 27-35 years who had undertaken a degree as a mature student”.

The tribunal said that many could demonstrate some disadvantage if they could select their own parameters. The Court of Appeal agreed that the “pool” was the total number of male and female graduates with relevant experience. The Sex Discrimination Act required it to be shown that the proportion of all female graduates who could satisfy the age requirement was smaller than the proportion of male graduates, whereas the appellant was basing her case on the proportion of female mature graduates. (University of Manchester v Jones 1993).

Chris Lowe is legal consultant to the Secondary Heads Association.