Age discrimination remains one of the most pervasive yet underreported forms of discrimination in the UK workplace. Despite legal protections under the Equality Act 2010, many older—and sometimes younger—employees continue to face unfair treatment based on age, often without realising that their rights have been breached or knowing how to challenge the behaviour.
Employment and settlement agreement lawyers are increasingly seeing age as a hidden barrier to progression, inclusion, and fair treatment at work – a problem that has also been noted by the UK Parliament’s Women and Equalities Committee.
Chris Hadrill, Partner at Redmans Solicitors, discusses what age bias looks like in the workplace, the various barriers to accessing justice, and whether employees in the UK need greater protection from age discrimination.
Understanding Age Discrimination in Law
Age is one of the nine “protected characteristics” under the Equality Act 2010, making it unlawful to discriminate against someone because of their age in the workplace. This includes recruitment, terms and conditions, promotions, training, dismissal, and retirement.
There are four main types of age discrimination recognised under the Act:
- Direct discrimination – when someone is treated less favourably because of their age. For example, an employer refuses to hire a candidate over 50 despite being the most qualified.
- Indirect discrimination – when a policy, criterion or practice applies to everyone but particularly disadvantages a specific age group. For example, a provision that requires candidates to have recently completed a degree.
- Harassment – when an employee is subjected to unwanted conduct related to age that violates their dignity or creates a hostile work environment. For example, referring to an older colleague as “past it” or an “old codger”.
- Victimisation – when someone is treated unfairly because they have complained about age discrimination or supported someone else’s complaint.
While these legal definitions provide a framework for challenging age-related bias, their practical enforcement is fraught with challenges.
The Subtlety of Age Bias in the Workplace
Unlike some other forms of discrimination, age bias is often cloaked in seemingly neutral language. Phrases such as “dynamic culture,” “looking for digital natives,” or concerns about “fitting in with a younger team” can all act as euphemisms for age discrimination. Likewise, assumptions about older workers being resistant to change, less tech-savvy, or lacking energy can influence decisions about training, promotion or redundancy, often without explicit acknowledgement.
Ageist stereotypes also affect younger employees. For example, younger workers may be overlooked for leadership roles or client-facing responsibilities based on the perception that they lack credibility or experience.
These subtle forms of discrimination are often harder to prove in a tribunal setting. This is because claimants must demonstrate that age was a significant factor in the decision-making process. Employers, on the other hand, may point to performance issues, personality clashes, or business needs, making it difficult to establish a direct link to age.
Enforcement Gaps and Cultural Challenges
While the law offers theoretical protection, in practice, many employees are reluctant to raise age-related complaints. Older employees may fear being labelled as “difficult” or risk damaging their career prospects further. Others may view discrimination as an inevitable part of ageing at work, internalising unfair treatment rather than challenging it.
The Employment Tribunal system also presents significant barriers. Bringing a claim can be costly, time-consuming, and emotionally draining. Legal aid is unavailable for most employment cases, and without legal representation, claimants face an uphill battle against well-resourced employers. Furthermore, tribunal statistics show that age discrimination claims are relatively low in number compared to other protected characteristics, suggesting significant underreporting.
There is also a broader cultural issue to address. While diversity and inclusion have gained prominence in recent years, age is often left out of the conversation. Initiatives to promote workplace equality frequently focus on gender, race, and sexual orientation, while age inclusivity lags behind. Only a few companies actively measure or report on age diversity, and even fewer have targeted strategies to support multi-generational workforces.
Retirement, Redundancy and the “Grey Ceiling”
Age discrimination concerns are particularly acute in decisions around retirement and redundancy. Since the abolition of the default retirement age in 2011, employees can no longer be forced to retire purely because of age. However, some employers still pressure older workers to retire “voluntarily” or suggest it is time to “make way” for younger talent.
Similarly, during redundancy exercises, older employees are often disproportionately selected, sometimes because they are seen as more expensive due to longer service or higher salaries. Although cost-saving is a legitimate business aim, employers must ensure their decisions are objectively justified and not based on ageist assumptions. Whilst older employees will be entitled to a higher statutory redundancy payout, and there is therefore an element of protection involved, this introduces a great degree of uncertainty for older employees.
Additionally, the so-called “grey ceiling” is another manifestation of age discrimination. This refers to the invisible barrier preventing older employees from being considered for promotion or professional development opportunities. In some sectors, once workers reach a certain age, they find their careers stagnate regardless of merit or ambition.
Is the Legal Framework Sufficient?
In theory, the Equality Act 2010 provides a robust framework to protect employees of all ages (both older and younger). The ability to justify direct age discrimination on objective grounds is unique among the protected characteristics, reflecting the idea that age-related distinctions may be appropriate in some contexts (e.g. health and safety rules, mandatory retirement for certain public roles).
However, in practice, this justification can be too easily relied upon. Employers often succeed in arguing that age-related decisions are a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims, such as workforce planning or cost efficiency. This undermines the strength of the legal protections and can leave claimants without a remedy.
Further, there is a lack of proactive enforcement. Unlike some other areas of equality law, there is no specific body responsible for monitoring age discrimination in the workplace. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has limited capacity and rarely brings age-related investigations or enforcement actions. Moreover, the Public Sector Equality Duty (“PSED”) is also being marginalised because of the same issues.
The UK Parliament’s Women and Equalities Committee has recommended several changes that the EHRC should consider that include (but are not limited to):
- Reviewing the ‘objective justification’ defence in age discrimination claims,
- Checking whether the PSED is fit for purpose, and
- If a “reasonable steps” duty should be imposed on employers to improve protections.
Recommendations for Stronger Protection
To truly tackle age discrimination, legal protection must be matched by cultural change and proactive enforcement. Key steps could include:
- Improved data collection: Monitoring and reporting on age diversity in the same way as it is done for other characteristics, including data on recruitment, promotion, and redundancy by age group.
- Mandatory training: Making age awareness training for managers and HR professionals mandatory at work, covering common stereotypes and lawful decision-making.
- Tribunal reform: Timely review of barriers to accessing justice for age discrimination claimants by the Government, including the availability of legal support and the complexity of proving claims.
- Greater EHRC oversight: Prioritising age equality in EHRC’s strategic enforcement work and using its powers to investigate systemic discrimination.
- Greater enforcement potential: Strengthening the PSED to ensure greater protections against age discrimination.
- Inclusive policies: Developing workplace age-inclusive policies, such as flexible working for all age groups, phased retirement options, and reverse mentoring schemes.
Final Thoughts
Age discrimination in the UK remains an under-addressed issue, both legally and culturally. While the Equality Act 2010 provides a legal basis for protection, the enforcement gap, the subtle nature of bias, and cultural silence around age mean that many employees remain vulnerable. If the UK is serious about creating inclusive workplaces for all, greater protection from age discrimination must be a central part of that agenda.
