Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beginning in April 2010, a major exception to the age discrimination rubric was removed from the statute book. The default retirement age (DRA) had permitted employers to retire workers at 65, thus driving the proverbial coach and horses through the anti-discrimination principle. The repeal was effective from April 6, 2011, but there was a 6 month transitional period. Such retirements could continue until October 1, 2011, providing that due notice was given before April 6, and that the worker was 65 (or the normal retirement age) before October 1, 2011 (reg.5). This repeal will be welcomed by those approaching retirement age and arguably most in need of protection from age discrimination. The bad news for these workers is that employers may still force them to retire, although this time the employer must defend the retirement using either the standard Genuine Occupational Requirement, or (more likely) objective justification. An interesting aspect to statutory interpretation is absorbed by the objective justification defence. Domestic courts and tribunals have been directed (by the ECJ) to interpret an employer’s defence to age discrimination according to expressed government social policy. There are two twists in this process. First, government policy appears to be fluid. Second, it appears nowadays to be somewhat different from other ECJ and Court of Appeal pronouncements on the subject of compulsory retirement. This leaves courts and tribunals with the task of scouring various government statements for a social policy, and then deciding if it can be reconciled with judicial precedent. Drawing on the extensive legislative background, UK and ECJ case law, and observations from Canada, the United States, and Australia, this article explores and speculates when an employer may succeed in objectively justifying compulsory retirement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".