Written by 
When does a casual remark about age cross the line into unlawful discrimination? And where, legally speaking, does that line actually sit? Recent tribunal decisions suggest the answer is far less straightforward than many of us might assume.
Age is a protected characteristic under the UK’s Equality Act 2010, meaning that employees and workers are legally protected from discrimination on the grounds of age throughout the employment relationship — from recruitment, to terms and conditions, training opportunities, promotion, and dismissal (Age UK, no date).
Yet the application of this relatively simple principle can be complex on the ground. The Times recently reported on an employment tribunal in Reading that dismissed an age discrimination claim by a 39-year-old employee who said she was demeaned by a colleague telling her she was “old” because she struggled with technology. The judge concluded that such a remark “would have been made to anyone older than [the colleague in his late 20s]”, and was therefore not unlawful discrimination against that individual (The Times, 2026).
This decision was contrasted in the same article with another tribunal ruling — one in which comments to an engineer in his 60s that he was “too old to handle new technology” were found to reflect a discriminatory mindset and formed part of an unfair dismissal process, resulting in an award of nearly £25,000 (The Times, 2026).
These twin cases highlight a recurrent theme in age discrimination law: context and impact often matter at least as much, if not more, than the comment itself. A remark that is very generalised — and not specifically linked to a protected individual or decision affecting them — may not be unlawful in isolation, whereas a similar comment can be part of a successful claim where it contributes to disadvantage, unfair treatment, or a pattern of behaviour affecting a worker’s prospects (Skelly, no date).
Direct and Indirect Discrimination
UK case law recognises both direct age discrimination (treating a person less favourably “because of” age) and indirect age discrimination (where a provision, criterion or practice disproportionately disadvantages a group of a particular age, unless it can be justified as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim) (Lyons Davidson LLP, no date).
For example, a pub that explicitly advertised jobs only to 18–24-year-olds was found to have indirectly discriminated against older jobseekers because there was no legitimate business justification for that age restriction (Patrizia’s Indirect Age Discrimination Case, no date).
Similarly, tribunals have found policies such as compulsory retirement ages to require careful justification to avoid indirect discrimination, as seen in cases such as Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes (Lyons Davidson LLP, no date).
Where the Boundary Lies
So what practical lessons follow?
First, comments alone do not always meet the legal test. A flippant remark about age may be unpleasant but not, by itself, unlawful. Its legal significance tends to turn on whether it is connected to treatment or a decision that disadvantages the claimant (The Times, 2026).
Second, context matters. Comments come into sharper focus when they form part of a pattern — for example, performance decisions, exclusion from opportunities, or disciplinary actions that may accompany them (Skelly, no date).
Third, indirect discrimination is common. Job requirements or practices that seem neutral — such as certain qualification thresholds or selection criteria — can inadvertently disadvantage age groups and require robust justification (Patrizia’s Indirect Age Discrimination Case, no date).
Finally, employers must be able to justify their actions. Even apparently age-neutral decisions, such as redundancy selection or retirement policies, can be unlawful if a tribunal finds they are not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate business aim (Macks Solicitors, no date).
From these cases, the “boundary” of lawful treatment is not a precise age number — it is the line between stereotype and substantively disadvantageous treatment. Lawful challenge may arise where age becomes the reason for less favourable treatment, rather than an incidental fact loosely associated with behaviour. The most robust approach for organisations is to guard against age-related assumptions and ensure all policies and workplace interactions are rooted in objective assessment rather than age-based generalisations.
If your organisation wants to reduce legal risk, the safest question is not “Can we say this?” but “What assumptions are we making — and how might they land?”
References
Age UK (no date) Ageism at work: discrimination, rights and protections. Available at:
https://www.ageuk.org.uk/information-advice/work-learning/discrimination-rights/ageism/ageism-at-work/ (Accessed: 21 January 2026).
Lyons Davidson LLP (no date) Age discrimination in employment law: Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes and Homer v West Yorkshire Police. Available at:
https://www.lyonsdavidson.co.uk/age-discrimination-now-employment-law-following-seldon-v-clarkson-wright-jakes-homer-v-chief-constable-west-yorkshire-police/ (Accessed: 21 January 2026).
Macks Solicitors (no date) I was dismissed due to my age – what are my rights? Available at:
https://www.mackssolicitors.co.uk/i-was-dismissed-due-to-my-age-what-are-my-rights/ (Accessed: 21 January 2026).
Patrizia’s Indirect Age Discrimination Case (no date) Example of indirect age discrimination. Available at:
https://valla.uk/real-examples/patrizias-indirect-age-discrimination-case (Accessed: 21 January 2026).
Skelly (no date) Does being told to “grow up” at work constitute age discrimination? Available at:
https://www.skelly.co.uk/insights/does-being-told-to-grow-up-at-work-constitute-age-discrimination (Accessed: 21 January 2026).
The Times (2026) Calling a colleague old (at 39!) is lawful, 21 January, p. 15.