Sir Tom Jones has spent more than a decade turning his chair for contestants on The Voice UK. Now, at 86, he says ITV has decided he will no longer continue as a full-time coach, despite his wanting to stay.
He said he was initially told the decision related to the cost of insurance. Reports later referred to a desire to ‘refresh’ the coaching line-up.
His response was characteristically direct: there is never a good time to ‘fire’ ‘an 86-year-old who’s still pretty good at his job.’
I want to be clear that nothing publicly available establishes that ITV has unlawfully discriminated against Sir Tom. The story, however, highlights a potential blind spot for employers: how far does any desire for change rely on assumptions about age?
‘Refresh’ is not a problem. What it means might be.
The question captures a recurring tension under the direct and indirect age discrimination provisions of the Equality Act 2010, and in the reasoning tribunals apply when weighing them. An employer, team, or organisation can have entirely legitimate reasons to want change: new skills, updated ways of working, succession planning, fresh perspectives, cost efficiency, or restructuring. None of that is inherently discriminatory.
The risk arises when that desire for change is justified, articulated, or actually motivated by generalised assumptions tied to age rather than to the individual’s actual performance, skills, or conduct. For example:
- Assuming someone is ‘set in their ways,’ resistant to new technology, or unable to adapt because of their age, rather than because of any evidence about that specific person.
- Using language like wanting ‘fresh blood,’ ‘new energy,’ or a ‘more agile’ team in a way that, on the facts, is really a proxy for wanting younger staff.
- Structuring a decision (e.g. redundancy selection, non-renewal, restructuring criteria) so that it disproportionately or systematically disadvantages older (or younger) employees, without objective justification tied to a genuine business need.
The line is crossed when the ‘desire for change’ stops being about identifiable, job-related criteria and starts resting on a stereotype about what people of a certain age are like, can do, or are willing to do.
Tribunals in this area typically look at whether the employer can point to a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and separately, whether the actual language (for example, in emails, meeting notes) and reasoning (for example, in selection criteria, outcome records) used by decision-makers reveals age-based assumptions rather than individualised, evidence-based judgments about the person in question, their actual performance or conduct.
Quality of decision making
Capability, experience, adaptability and ambition are individual characteristics, not proxies for age. Age discrimination nonetheless occupies an unusual position in discrimination law: unlike most protected characteristics, direct age-based treatment can sometimes be objectively justified, provided it serves a legitimate business objective and the means used are proportionate to it.
However, justification requires more than attaching a commercial explanation to a decision afterwards. An employer should be able to identify the legitimate objective it was trying to achieve and explain why the approach it took was proportionate.
That makes the quality of the decision-making particularly important.
The paperwork usually tells the story
When an organisation makes a difficult decision involving somebody’s career, the question is not simply whether management can articulate a reason afterwards. It is whether that reason is supported by what actually happened at the time.
If an employee is said to lack the skills required for the future, where was that skills gap identified?
If performance was the concern, what did the performance evidence show? If the business genuinely needed a different type of role, was that requirement defined before the individual was selected? If the language internally was about somebody being ‘past it,’ lacking energy or needing to make way for a younger generation, then a much more difficult picture begins to emerge.
Good documentation will not rescue a discriminatory decision. However, clear objectives, consistent criteria and evidence-based reasoning will make it easier to show that a decision was driven by genuine business needs and not assumptions about age.
Ageism works in both directions
Sir Tom’s situation has attracted attention because he is 86 and says he still wanted to do the job.
But the same principle applies at the opposite end of a career.
A 60-year-old can be overlooked because somebody assumes they will struggle with new technology and a 25-year-old can be denied responsibility because they are considered too young to handle it. A candidate may also be unlawfully rejected because they are thought unlikely to `fit’ the age profile of an existing team.
Employers should be just as cautious about assuming a younger employee is not ready to lead, lacks maturity or needs more years behind them before being given an opportunity.
Businesses are entitled to make difficult decisions. They can restructure, change strategy, plan for succession and recruit different skills. What they should avoid is allowing somebody’s age to answer a question that should really be answered by evidence.
An 86-year-old should not lose their voice because somebody assumes their best work is behind them. Nor should a 25-year-old lose theirs because somebody assumes they are not yet ready to be heard.
When change is being considered, the question is simple: what can this person actually contribute?
