Mandatory retirement: Deloitte ‘knew age policy was illegal’

A senior Deloitte Australia partner claims the business had a mandatory retirement policy which it knew was ‘against the law’.

Colin Brown is alleging he was directed to leave the partnership after he turned 62 and is seeking $3m in damages, claiming Deloitte tried to unlawfully force him out of the company.

A senior Deloitte Australia partner claims the business had a mandatory retirement policy which it knew was “against the law” and that it tendered for a major project despite knowing he could not serve out its terms in accordance with that policy.

Auditor Colin Brown is alleging he was directed to leave the partnership after he turned 62 and is seeking $3m in damages, claiming Deloitte tried to unlawfully force him out of the company.

In a statement of claim filed with the Federal Court, Mr Brown alleges at no stage during the meetings before he joining the company was he “informed of the Retirement Policy, or of the True Position Regarding Retirement, or that he would be required or expected to retire as a partner on account of his age”.

Mr Brown, who remains with the firm, alleges that despite repeated meetings with senior figures within the company it was at no point made clear to him “that he would not be required or expected to retire from the partnership in the short or medium term, being a period of at least ten years” and that “he would not be required or expected to retire from the partnership as a result of reaching a certain age”.

He plans to argue that Deloitte “was aware at all relevant times that it was unlawful to require or expect a partner to retire on the grounds of age”, and yet proceeded to seek to impose the Retirement Policy, according to the filing.

He alleges that a senior partner in Deloitte’s Brisbane office made a statement to him around July last year that “the retirement age is not in the Partnership Agreement because it’s against the law”. The Age Discrimination Act outlawed mandatory age-based retirement in 2004.

A spokesman for Deloitte said: “There is no mandatory retirement age specified in our partnership agreement.”

The case has been listed for a case management conference in the Federal Court on October 15, and Deloitte is required to lodge its defence by September 18. Last week Mr Brown’s solicitors agreed to provide “further and better particulars” by Friday.

Mr Brown alleges that Deloitte’s retirement policy was in effect before he joined the company and any assurances that there were no such policies were “misleading or deceptive” in contravention of Australian Consumer Law.

He contends that if he had known of the retirement policies he would not have joined Deloitte Australia, but instead remained with Deloitte Onch Audit LLC.

Mr Brown said the salary he was offered to bring him back as a consultant was less than half of his current salary.

“The Applicant has suffered mental anguish, anxiety, distress and potential loss of professional reputation and embarrassment as a result of the proposed application to him of the Retirement Policy,” the statement of claim says.

Mr Brown also claims Deloitte acted inappropriately in tendering for auditing services to Rio Tinto’s Mongolian operations, knowing that he would be required to retire before the end of those services.

“At no stage during the tender process or during the period leading up to Deloitte securing the Rio Tinto Internal Audit Work, did the First Respondent or any partner of the First Respondent inform or otherwise make known to Rio Tinto that the Applicant would shortly be required or expected to retire from the partnership, and therefore was not likely to be available,” the statement of claim alleges.

“The Rio Tinto Representations were misleading.”