Female member not accepted in staff scheme until age 21 even though I commenced at the company at 18

Maid_Marion_3

Hi everyone


I started working for a reputable insurance company in February 1978 at the age of 18 years and turned 19 in March 1978. However, as I was a female I was not included in the staff pension scheme until I was 21 as the rules were that females could not be part of the pension scheme until they reached 21 years of age.



I left the company in April 1985 to have my first child and so ended up with a deferred Defined Benefit pension. However, I now reflect back and feel that I have missed out on just over 2 years benefits simply because I was female. Obviously the rules regarding equality have changed over the years and I wonder if I could now claim discrimination and recover the 2 years of pension that I lost.


I hope someone can help, please. I am due to claim my pension next March and really feel quite bitter that I have missed out on 2 years of my benefits which could amount to 40% more than I am due to receive.


Thank you in anticipation.

westv

I joined a company in 1979 aged 16 but didn't qualify for the DB pension scheme until 1988.

dunstonh

Are you sure that it was only females that could not join until 21? Yes, discrimination did exist back then but many DB schemes wouldn't allow men to join to 21-23 either. A minimum age was a very common thing.

hyubh

Maid_Marion wrote: »

I started working for a reputable insurance company in February 1978 at the age of 18 years and turned 19 in March 1978. However, as I was a female I was not included in the staff pension scheme until I was 21 as the rules were that females could not be part of the pension scheme until they reached 21 years of age.

Was it definitely only women? Only allowing entry from 21 would have been plausible back in the day for men too.

Also - what is your normal pension age in the scheme, compared to a male peer? It was not uncommon for private sector final salary schemes to mirror the state pension ages of the time (i.e. 65 for men, 60 for women).

AnotherJoe

I think you'd need a lawyer to progress this, sounds like the sort of thing that would need a test case that went up to the Supreme Court. To put it in perspective, can the men that worked from age 60 to 65 whilst women of the same age retired and got a pension, also retrospectively claim ?
Certainly in some cases it seems retrospective action can be taken, but it seems it needs to go very high up the courts to decide what can and what can't.

enthusiasticsaver

I worked for a bank in 1978 and left in 1985 and ended up with a GMP as I was under 26 when I left. The GMP payment date is 60 for women so 2020 for me and 65 for men. It seemed common then for men and women to be treated separately for pensions. You could also argue that you did not have to make contributions for those 3 years.

Pensions then are now are a minefield with the various restrictions and conditions.

green.lander_2

i joined a pension scheme in 1979 and could not join until i was 21 (male) when i did a left a few years later.

Triumph13

My employer didn't let anyone join the DB scheme until thy were 30. And then closed it down when I was 37

Mnd

I think my joining age was 25, even though I started at 16. I seem to remove had a 40th accrual rate which meant 40 years to pension date at 65 as it was then

Brynsam

AnotherJoe wrote: »

I think you'd need a lawyer to progress this, sounds like the sort of thing that would need a test case that went up to the Supreme Court.

This and other variants of pensions-related inequality have already been not just to the Supreme Court but also the European Court.

OP - understand your feelings, but sadly this is a non-starter. It isn't quite as black and white as you (naturally) see it, for the following reasons:

1. you can take your pension at 60, whereas men with service during the same period would have to wait until 65 (or take their pension at 60 with a reduction of probably around 25-30% because it is being paid 'early')
2. you didn't contribute to the pension scheme for those two years, so your take home pay was higher
3. you would have built up a higher SERPS entitlement during the two years before you joined, if the scheme was contracted out of SERPS - and I'd bet that it was.

hyubh

Brynsam wrote: »

you can take your pension at 60, whereas men with service during the same period would have to wait until 65 (or take their pension at 60 with a reduction of probably around 25-30% because it is being paid 'early')

We don't know that, I only raised it as a reasonable possibility. Since the OP hasn't come back yet, we may never know (hopefully she does though).

you didn't contribute to the pension scheme for those two years, so your take home pay was higher

Hardly a killer argument, as it's one for opting out as soon as that became possible! Might have even been a non-contributory scheme, for all we know.

you would have built up a higher SERPS entitlement during the two years before you joined, if the scheme was contracted out of SERPS - and I'd bet that it was.

The GMP would have covered that, in fact with hindsight likely well more than covered that (assuming the scheme uses fixed rate GMP revaluation).