Tribunal proceedings in relation to an age discrimination claim must be brought within 6 months less one day of the discriminatory act complained of, where that act occurred on or after 1 October 2026. Where the act occurred before this date, the previous time limit of 3 months less one day continues to apply. Where discriminatory conduct extends over a period, time runs from the end of that period, and the 6-month time limit applies if the period ends on or after 1 October 2026.
Claimants must (unless exempt) notify Acas and obtain an early conciliation certificate before commencing Employment Tribunal proceedings. Provided Acas is notified before the applicable time limit expires, the time limit is paused during early conciliation, which can last up to 12 weeks, and the claimant will have at least one month from receiving the certificate to present the claim.
Age Discrimination Solicitors: The Legislation
Under the Equality Act 2010, the following provisions apply to age discrimination in employment:-
- Overview: Age is a protected characteristic under section 5 of the Equality Act 2010. Protection applies to people of all ages, including younger and older workers and job applicants. An age group can comprise people of a particular age or a range of ages, such as people under 30 or over 50. The Act protects against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation in employment, including recruitment, working conditions, training, promotion and dismissal. Certain age-related differences in treatment are permitted where the relevant legal requirements are satisfied.
- Direct Age Discrimination: Direct age discrimination occurs where a person is treated less favourably because of age than another person is, or would be, treated in comparable circumstances. The comparison may be with an actual person or a hypothetical one. Direct discrimination can also occur where a person is treated less favourably because of their association with someone of a particular age or age group, or because they are wrongly perceived to be of a particular age. Unlike direct discrimination because of most other protected characteristics, direct age discrimination can be objectively justified. Under section 13(2) of the Equality Act 2010, the employer must show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. In employment, the justification must pursue a legitimate social policy aim, such as inter-generational fairness or preserving the dignity of older workers by avoiding potentially humiliating capability proceedings. A purely individual business reason, such as reducing costs, is not sufficient on its own. Establishing a legitimate aim is not enough. The employer must also demonstrate that the particular measure is appropriate and reasonably necessary to achieve that aim, taking account of whether a less discriminatory alternative would be effective. For example, where an employer imposes a compulsory retirement age, it must justify not only the retirement policy itself but also the particular age chosen.
- Indirect Age Discrimination: Indirect age discrimination occurs where an employer applies a provision, criterion or practice which puts people in a particular age group at a particular disadvantage compared with people outside that group, and the claimant belongs to that age group and suffers that disadvantage, unless the employer can show that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. For example, a fitness requirement set at a level beyond what is needed for the job may disproportionately disadvantage older applicants. Protection can also extend to a person who does not belong to the disadvantaged age group but suffers substantively the same disadvantage. For example, a younger applicant who cannot meet the same fitness requirement may also have a claim for indirect age discrimination if they suffer substantively the same disadvantage and the requirement cannot be objectively justified. Unlike direct age discrimination, the justification for indirect age discrimination need not pursue a wider social policy objective. An employer may rely on a genuine business need, provided the requirement is proportionate. However, simply seeking to reduce costs, without more, is insufficient to justify indirect discrimination. A genuine need to reduce expenditure in response to financial constraints, such as balancing the employer’s books, may nevertheless constitute a legitimate aim, provided the measures adopted are proportionate.
- Victimisation: Victimisation occurs where a person is subjected to a detriment because they have carried out a protected act under the Equality Act 2010, or because the employer believes they have done, or may do, so. Protected acts include bringing proceedings under the Equality Act 2010, giving evidence or information in connection with such proceedings (including in support of someone else’s claim), making an allegation that the Equality Act 2010 has been breached, or doing anything else for the purposes of or in connection with the Act. However, giving false evidence or information, or making a false allegation, is not protected if it is done in bad faith
- Harassment: Harassment related to age is defined under section 26(1) of the Equality Act 2010 as unwanted conduct related to age which has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them. The conduct does not have to be directed at the person bringing the claim, provided it has that purpose or effect in relation to them. In determining whether conduct has that effect, the Tribunal takes account of the person’s perception, the circumstances of the case and whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. From 30 October 2026, employers may also be liable where their employees are subjected to harassment related to age by third parties, such as customers and clients, in the course of their employment, and the employer has failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent it.
- Retirement: There is no general default retirement age. Employees do not have to retire merely because they reach State Pension age. An employer imposing a compulsory retirement age must show that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, unless a specific statutory retirement rule applies. The employer must justify the particular retirement age chosen, not simply the decision to operate a retirement policy. Where a retirement age has been agreed, that agreement may be relevant to the assessment of proportionality, particularly in partnership arrangements, but it does not in itself justify compulsory retirement. Pressuring an employee to retire because of their age may amount to unlawful age discrimination. Compulsory retirement may also give rise to an unfair dismissal claim, subject to the normal eligibility requirements, since retirement is no longer a separate potentially fair reason for dismissal. For further information, see our Unfair Dismissal Claims page.
- Job Adverts: Job advertisements and selection criteria should focus on the skills, qualifications and experience genuinely required for the role. An employer must not impose an age restriction unless it is permitted by law or can be objectively justified. Requiring relevant experience is not automatically unlawful. However, requiring a particular number of years’ experience may amount to indirect age discrimination unless the requirement is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Decisions about training, promotion and performance should be based on the individual’s abilities, performance and development needs, rather than age-based assumptions. For example, an employer should not refuse training simply because it assumes that an older employee will soon retire.
Bringing A Claim
Tribunal proceedings in relation to an age discrimination claim must be brought within 6 months less one day of the discriminatory act complained of, where that act occurred on or after 1 October 2026. Where the act occurred before this date, the previous time limit of 3 months less one day continues to apply. Where discriminatory conduct extends over a period, time runs from the end of that period, and the 6-month time limit applies if the period ends on or after 1 October 2026.
Unlike ordinary unfair dismissal claims, there is no minimum qualifying period of employment for bringing a discrimination claim. If the claim succeeds, the Employment Tribunal may make a declaration as to the rights of the parties, award compensation, and recommend that the employer take specified steps within a specified period to reduce or eliminate the adverse effect of the discrimination on the claimant. If the employer fails to comply with a recommendation without reasonable excuse, the Tribunal may increase the compensation awarded or, if no compensation was originally awarded, order the employer to pay compensation.
Compensation for discrimination is not subject to a statutory cap. Unlike unfair dismissal claims, discrimination compensation is not divided into separate basic and compensatory awards. Instead, compensation is assessed according to the circumstances of the case and may include the following:
- Injury to Feelings: Compensation may be awarded for the distress, humiliation and hurt feelings caused by unlawful discrimination. The criteria for assessing compensation for hurt feelings were set out by the Court of Appeal in the case of Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire (No.2) (2003), as subsequently amended, the most recent amendments being made with effect from the 6th April 2026. As a result of this, there is a top band of £62,900.00 plus for exceptionally serious cases (for cases presented between the 6th April 2025 and the 5th April 2026, the band is £60,700.00 plus), an upper band of £37,700.00 to £62,900.00 for serious cases (for cases presented between the 6th April 2025 and the 5th April 2026, the band is £36,400.00 to £60,700.00), a middle band of between £12,600.00 to £37,700.00 (for cases presented between the 6th April 2025 and the 5th April 2026, the band is £12,100.00 to £36,400.00), and a lower band of between £1,300.00 to £12,600.00 for less serious and one-off cases (for cases presented between the 6th April 2025 and the 5th April 2026, the band is £1,200.00 to £12,100.00). The Court in Vento stated that awards for less than the lower band should be avoided. In England and Wales, aggravated damages may also be awarded where particularly high-handed, malicious, insulting or oppressive conduct has caused additional injury to feelings. In Scotland, aggravated damages are not awarded separately, but a tribunal will take any such conduct into account when assessing the award for injury to feelings.
- Loss of Earnings: Normally makes up the bulk of the claim and includes both actual and future loss of earnings. Future loss can be extensive where psychiatric injury has been sustained as a result of the discrimination and makes it difficult for the employee to obtain new and appropriate employment.
- Injury to Health (Personal Injury): Compensation may also be awarded for physical or psychiatric injury caused by unlawful discrimination, where supported by appropriate medical evidence. Any award must avoid duplicating compensation for injury to feelings or other losses. The possibility of pursuing separate civil proceedings depends on the circumstances, and legal advice should be obtained before pursuing claims arising from the same events in different courts or tribunals.
- Ancillary Losses: These can be for items such as the cost of looking for alternative employment and pension loss.
- Interest:Â Interest on the compensation award can be claimed
