LNER Age Discrimination Case: Why the Train Drivers Lost

8 January 2026 | Tom Street, Solicitor

Sometimes the law reaches a result that feels deeply unfair, even when it’s technically correct. A recent employment tribunal decision involving LNER and four long-serving train drivers is one of those cases.

The four drivers, each with more than 40 years’ service, were denied ill-health severance payments because they were over 65 when their employment ended. One described feeling “cancelled as a person” and called the decision “an overpowering kick in the gut.” Yet the tribunal found no unlawful age discrimination had occurred.

How can that be right? The answer lies in a peculiarity of UK age discrimination law that many employees don’t realise exists.

What happened

The four claimants were former LNER train drivers who had spent their careers on the railways, working through multiple changes of ownership and TUPE transfers over four decades. When their employment ended due to ill health, they expected to receive payments under LNER’s Ill Health Severance Arrangements (IHSA), a scheme designed to support employees forced to leave due to medical reasons.

But LNER refused to pay. The reason? A cap in the IHSA scheme that excluded anyone aged 65 or over from receiving benefits.

The drivers belonged to Schedule 8 of LNER’s pension scheme, the most advantageous section, which allowed them to access 100% pension benefits from age 64. But that didn’t help them with the severance arrangements they were also entitled to expect after so many years of service.

Making matters worse, there was evidence that some other drivers had received IHSA payouts despite being over 65. LNER admitted this was inconsistent, describing at least one case as “a mistake.”

Why the claim failed

Under the Equality Act 2010, it’s generally unlawful to treat someone less favourably because of their age. But there’s a significant exception that doesn’t apply to most other protected characteristics: direct age discrimination can be justified if the employer shows it was “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”

LNER argued that the age 65 cap served legitimate purposes: ensuring intergenerational fairness in benefit provision and allocating resources fairly and equitably. The tribunal accepted this. Employment Judge Loy found LNER’s aims were “rational, not arbitrary and capable of being understood.”

The inconsistency in treatment, where some over-65s had received payments, wasn’t enough to establish discrimination. The tribunal acknowledged that it was “perfectly understandable why the claimants felt aggrieved about this inconsistency” but held it didn’t form a sufficient foundation for an age discrimination claim.

The problem with objective justification

I think this case highlights a real weakness in how age discrimination law operates. “Intergenerational fairness” and “equitable resource allocation” sound reasonable in the abstract. But they can be used to justify cutting off benefits to precisely the employees who might need them most: those leaving work due to ill health later in their careers.

The objective justification test requires tribunals to balance the employer’s legitimate aims against the discriminatory effect on the employee. In theory, this should protect workers from arbitrary or harsh treatment. In practice, once an employer articulates a coherent business rationale, tribunals are often reluctant to second-guess it.

There’s also something troubling about legacy arrangements that predate the abolition of compulsory retirement in 2011 but continue to operate on assumptions from that era. The IHSA rules were agreed with unions at a time when 65 was treated as a natural endpoint for employment. The workforce has changed, but the rules haven’t always kept pace.

What this means for older workers

If you’re an older employee, this decision is a reminder that age-based distinctions in workplace benefits and policies may be lawful, provided your employer can justify them. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t challenge treatment that feels unfair, but it does mean you need to understand what you’re up against.

A few practical points worth considering:

First, check your contract and any relevant policies carefully. Age caps on benefits, insurance arrangements, or severance provisions may be buried in scheme documents you’ve never read. Understanding what you’re entitled to, and what limitations exist, is essential before any dispute arises.

Second, if you’re approaching a significant age threshold and anticipate that ill health might affect your employment, timing can matter. This isn’t about gaming the system, but about understanding how different outcomes might affect your entitlements.

Third, inconsistency in how policies are applied can be relevant, even if it isn’t always decisive. If you’re aware that colleagues in similar situations were treated differently, document this. It may not win your case, but it strengthens your position and puts pressure on the employer to explain themselves.

The broader picture

Age discrimination claims have increased significantly in recent years, more than doubling during the pandemic period. As the workforce ages and more people work beyond traditional retirement age, these issues will only become more common.

The LNER case is disappointing for the claimants, but it’s legally orthodox. What it reveals is that the current framework gives employers considerable latitude to maintain age-based distinctions in benefits and policies, provided they can articulate a business justification. Whether that’s the right balance is a question for Parliament, not the tribunals.

For workers facing similar situations, the message is clear: age discrimination law offers protection, but it’s not absolute. If you believe you’ve been treated unfairly because of your age, particularly in relation to benefits or severance arrangements, get advice early. The legal test for justification is fact-specific, and outcomes depend heavily on how the case is presented.