In Lockwood v Department of Work and Pensions and another, under the voluntary redundancy scheme, as a 26 year-old employee with 8 years' service, Lockwood received a redundancy payment of £10,849. However, under the scheme rules, if she had been over the age of 35 with the same length of service, she would have been entitled to an additional payment of £17,690. The EAT agreed with the ET that no age discrimination had occurred as: (i) there was a material difference between her age group (under 35), and the older comparator age group (over 35), i.e. it was not appropriate to compare the treatment of those groups because of the comparative difficulties suffered by older workers upon loss of employment; and in any event (ii) the less favourable treatment of the younger age group was objectively justified as it had legitimate objectives of a “public interest nature” as required by the Supreme Court judgment in Seldon v Clarkson Wright and Jakes [2012] IRLR 590, and the means chosen was proportionate. Comment: The case confirms that direct age discrimination must be justified by reference to social policy objectives in the public interest, i.e. the legitimate aims identified must be “social policy objectives” and not simply reasons particular to an individual employer's or organisation’s situation. Given the brevity of the EAT’s judgment, here, the difficulties suffered by older workers upon loss of employment appears to have been given significant weight.