Latest Posts

Are Older People at Work Losing Their Voice? What Tom Jones’s Exit Tells Us About Ageism

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?

Read More

Changing Employment Contracts: Why Fire and Rehire Is Becoming Higher Risk

Many employers are reviewing employment contracts due to changing business needs. Pay and commission structures, benefits, working patterns, hybrid arrangements, locations, bonuses, expenses, shift patterns and role responsibilities can often become pressure points for businesses requiring contract variation.

There may be good business reasons for change. However, where employees do not agree to changing employment contract terms, the legal route to introduce changes can be more difficult and from January 2027, fire and rehire, or dismissal and re-engagement, is becoming a much higher-risk option.

What is fire and rehire?

Fire and rehire describes a situation where an employer dismisses an employee from their existing contract and offers to re-engage them on new contractual terms.

This often becomes necessary where the employer has been unable to obtain agreement to proposed contractual changes from the employee.

At present, fire and rehire it is not automatically unlawful in every case. However, it has always carried some risk because it involves dismissal. Employers who fire and rehire may face unfair dismissal claims, breach of collective consultation obligations and reputational damage.

Why is the risk increasing?

From January 2027, the Employment Rights Act 2025 significantly narrows the use of fire and rehire by making dismissals automatically unfair unless the employer can show financial difficulties and that the contractual change was unavoidable.

The details are being are being finalised by the government but the direction is clear. Employers will need to show more than a preference for the new terms. They will need evidence of the business need, proper consultation and genuine consideration of alternatives.

Where employers get caught out

In addition to the genuine business need requirements above, the process is critical and often, the employer’s vulnerability starts well before dismissal is even considered.

A business decides that a change is commercially necessary. A timetable is set. Communications are prepared. The desired outcome is already clear.

Employees are then asked to agree.

If consultation is treated as a route to securing acceptance rather than a genuine opportunity to understand concerns and explore alternatives, the process becomes vulnerable.

The key question is not simply whether the employer wanted the change. It is whether the employer can show that the process was fair, evidence-based and genuinely open to consideration of alternatives which were then properly evaluated.

Common contract changes that may create risk

Employers should take particular care where changes affect core terms, including:

• pay or commission;
• bonus arrangements;
• pension or benefits;
• working hours;
• shift patterns;
• place of work or mobility requirements;
• hybrid or remote working arrangements;
• duties, responsibilities or reporting lines;
• expenses or allowances.

These are often commercially important, but they are also the changes most likely to be resisted by employees.

What should employers do before changing terms?

Before proposing contractual changes, employers should consider:

• What is the business reason for the change?
• Is there financial evidence supporting the need for change?
• Which contractual terms are affected?
• Is employee agreement required?
• Is there an existing variation, flexibility or mobility clause that may apply?
• Who should be consulted, and when should this begin?
• Are there alternative to avoid the proposed change?
• Could the change have a discriminatory impact?
• Will collective consultation obligations be triggered?
• What is the reputational risk if dismissal and re-engagement is proposed?

In practice, the employers best placed to defend a change are those that have prepared properly before announcing it.

Employers should not assume that a broadly drafted variation clause permits any change.

Why manager training matters

Contract variation exercises are often undermined by inconsistent messages.

One manager may suggest the change is optional. Another may say it is inevitable. A senior leader may imply that refusal will lead to dismissal before consultation has run its course.

Managers involved in communicating contractual changes should understand the process, the limits of what they can say and the importance of avoiding premature conclusions.

How Quastels can help

Quastels advises employers on employment contracts, contract variation, consultation, dismissal and re-engagement, collective consultation, unfair dismissal risk and employment disputes.

We help businesses plan and implement contractual changes in a way that is commercially realistic and legally defensible.

Please contact Dipti Shah in Quastels’ Employment Team if you are considering changes to employment contracts or want to review your approach before the January 2027 changes take effect.

Read More

More Than a Policy: Supporting Employees Through IVF

For many people, IVF is one of the most physically demanding and emotionally complex experiences they will ever go through. Yet for many, it remains a journey that is largely invisible to those around them, including their employer.

Appointments can be arranged at short notice. Treatment can have significant physical side effects. The emotional impact of uncertainty, hope and disappointment can be difficult to carry alongside the demands of a working day. Deciding whether to tell colleagues or managers about treatment can bring an additional layer of anxiety.

As more people undergo fertility treatment, employers have an increasingly important role to play in creating workplaces where employees feel supported rather than isolated.

To mark World IVF Day, Employment Partner Dipti Shah sat down with colleagues Ben Rosen and Hayley Lawrence for an open and honest conversation about their experiences of IVF and the practical ways employers can better support people undergoing treatment.

The challenges employees face

Throughout the discussion, Ben and Hayley speak candidly about the realities of IVF. While every journey is different, they reflect on many of the challenges shared by people undergoing fertility treatment, including:

• Managing frequent and often unpredictable medical appointments.
• Coping with the physical side effects of medication and treatment.
• The emotional impact of uncertainty, setbacks and loss.
• Deciding whether to disclose treatment to an employer or colleagues.
• Balancing professional responsibilities with an intensely personal experience.

These are challenges that are often hidden from view, making understanding and empathy in the workplace all the more important.

What can employers do?

From an employment law perspective, Dipti explores the practical steps organisations can take to better support employees during fertility treatment.

While there is no single approach that works for every individual, creating an environment where people feel comfortable having conversations about fertility can make a significant difference.

The discussion considers:

• Creating a workplace culture where employees feel able to speak openly if they choose to.
• Training managers to respond with empathy and understanding.
• Offering flexibility around appointments where possible.
• Considering fertility policies and wider wellbeing initiatives.
• Recognising that support is not only about legal compliance, but about building a compassionate workplace culture.

Why these conversations matter

Many people undergoing IVF continue working throughout treatment without those around them ever knowing what they are experiencing.

By increasing awareness and encouraging open conversations, employers can help reduce stigma and ensure employees feel supported during one of the most challenging periods of their lives.

We are incredibly grateful to Ben and Hayley for sharing their personal experiences so openly. Their honesty helps shine a light on an experience that affects countless individuals and families, but is still rarely discussed in the workplace.

Read More