Employers should be mindful of the sharp rise in the value of age-discrimination compensation awarded to older employees. Awards have risen by over 600%, making the average payout just over £100,000 according the data from the Ministry of Justice. A report published by the Women and Equalities Committee "The Rights of Older People" found that ageism is widespread and worryingly noted that it is perceived as less serious than any other kind of discrimination.
Age discrimination is a protected characteristic governed by The Equality Act 2010 which prohibits direct and indirect age discrimination, as well as age-related harassment and victimisation. It also protects job applicants. Nevertheless, following the report published by the Women and Equalities Committee "The Rights of Older People", notes that it is perceived lower than other protected characteristics, however, unhelpful and negative ageist stereotypes are perpetrating its prevalence.
Cameron Jack, a paralegal, commented "Employers should be aware that it is a misconception that all cognitive abilities decline with age, depends entirely on the individual. Experience-based knowledge, together with an understanding of business and its challenges, can be essential to a business and older workers are still capable of learning and improving their skills and often prove to be more reliable than their younger colleagues." Cameron further commented "employers must take steps to ensure that age discrimination is not normalised by the staff, with discriminatory references to older employees, or inappropriate nicknames, as this may result in an employment tribunal case against the company that could result in a six-figure award, if successful. The being said, it is particularly difficult for the employers dealing with this protected characteristic, as employers are permitted to treat older individuals less favourably where it can be objectively justified as a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This is something which has recently been in the headlines in the case of Martin Scott and Walker Morris LLP, in which the employment tribunal held the firm forced him out as a senior partner pursuant to a mandatory retirement policy, which constituted unlawful discrimination. The employment tribunal noted that the firm held "discriminatory assumptions about and attitudes towards older partners" which were "not supported by any documentary or objective evidence". It is therefore clear that a balance needs to be struck between proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and the individual circumstances. This is, in my view, very limited in scope in reality and employers ought to be aware of the risks."
A relatively recent high-profile legal case, Glen Cowis the global business unit president of the Foseco division at Vesuvius Plc, a global FTSE 250 engineering company, was awarded £3.2 million following a claim at the Employment Tribunal where one piece of evidence - a discussion with the CEO who referred to him as an "old fossil" who "did not know how to deal with millennials" - was felt by the Tribunal to be one of the factors that led to Mr. Cowis dismissal.
In the 15 years since the Equality Act various studies illustrate that many employers are not taking the steps to address age discrimination. It is surprising to learn that approximately two in five employers have absolutely no diversity and inclusion strategy and many of them are taking no steps to address the omission. Furthermore, the research that the University of Sheffield undertook in 2023 found that even those companies with anti-age discrimination policies were failing to deal with the issue in the workplace and there were no consequences to employees who have been found to discriminate, in that they were not disciplined nor were the managers, who repeatedly contravened the Act, dismissed.
In a case heard in December 2024 and January 2025, the Employment Tribunal which demonstrates that age discrimination is one of the most disregarded laws, Walker Morris, a Leeds law firm, failed to adhere to the Equality Act and did not strike the balance of fairness.
Martin Scott, who worked for the firm for 25 years rising to be an equity partner, was forced to retire once he reached 60 years of age. The firm had a mandatory retirement policy whereby partners who reached the age of 60 years had to apply to stay employed at the firm in order to deliver "intergenerational fairness" and to provide younger partners with the opportunity to progress within a reasonable period of time. Mr. Scott's first application was successful, however his second application was rejected and it was suggested that he could no longer make the "exceptional contribution" that he was able to do when he applied previously, Walker Morris claimed. Therefore, he was therefore forced out of the firm at the age of 63 years. It should be noted that retirement pension age is 66 years for both men and women, but it is scheduled to increase to 67 years between 2026 and 2028, and eventually to 68 years between 2044 and 2046.
The Employment Tribunal decided that Mr. Scott had been subject to age discrimination stating: "...There was very little evidence before this tribunal to support a conclusion that forcing partners to retire aged 63 was reasonably necessary for workforce and succession planning,' said the tribunal. Different standards were applied to different age groups, and the tribunal took account in particular of the evidence of former managing partner Malcolm Simpson, who said that partners begin to 'slow down' as they get older. The tribunal added: 'There was a lack of objective evidence of any deterioration in performance of partners in their 50s and 60s. Mr Simpson demonstrated discriminatory assumptions about and attitudes towards older partners, which were not supported by the evidence before us. Mr Simpson's comments about partners' performance and energy levels tailing off in their 50s and beyond are the type of assumption that the age discrimination legislation is designed to counter..."
Giambrone & Partners employment lawyers suggest that all businesses review their discrimination policies and give regular reminders to their staff that discrimination of any kind is not acceptable and that the attitude towards older colleagues must not include biased discriminatory nicknames or attitudes. The very real risk of significant fines can be avoided by adhering to the law.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
