“Is Training Something You’re Interested in at Your Age?” PwC Settles Discrimination Claim for £150,000

11 February 2026  |  Tom Street, Solicitor

What does 40 years of loyal service count for? At PricewaterhouseCoopers in Belfast, apparently not enough to protect you from being asked whether training is really something you’re interested in “at your age.”

A former PwC executive support assistant has settled her age and disability discrimination claim against the company for £150,000, supported by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. She gave more than four decades to one of the world’s biggest professional services firms. The reward for that loyalty, she says, was a series of remarks that made her feel her age and her caring responsibilities had become a problem.

What happened

The woman, who has remained anonymous, says a senior colleague unexpectedly raised concerns about her knowledge of new technology. She reports being asked if training was something she was interested in at her age. She was told that, because of her length of service, she was “just working towards her pension.” She was told she looked tired and should consider taking time off for her caring responsibilities.

Think about those remarks for a moment. Every single one of them links a negative assumption directly to her age. That’s not subtle. That’s not a grey area. It’s textbook.

Understandably, the woman raised a formal grievance. What happened next is a pattern I see too often: rather than resolving the problem, the grievance process appeared to make things worse. She claims she was then subjected to unjustified performance criticisms by senior colleagues, despite having received consistently strong performance reviews over many years.

PwC’s internal grievance investigation concluded that she had experienced harassment, but found that it did not amount to unlawful discrimination. Her appeal was unsuccessful. As part of the settlement, she left the company she had worked at for over 40 years.

The grievance problem

I want to pause on something here, because it matters. PwC’s own process found that this woman experienced harassment. That finding alone should have triggered serious action. Instead, the internal process drew a line between “harassment” and “unlawful discrimination” and used that distinction to close the door.

This is a company with enormous resources. It has dedicated HR teams, internal legal departments, and global diversity and inclusion policies. And yet the outcome of this grievance was, essentially: yes, you were harassed, but no, we don’t think it was unlawful. Move on.

Too many employers treat internal grievance processes as a box-ticking exercise. The employee raises a concern, the employer investigates itself, and the employer finds that it hasn’t done anything too badly wrong. The employee is left feeling that the process was designed to protect the company, not to protect them. That feeling, in many cases, is accurate. If you’re thinking about raising a grievance, our guide on how to write a grievance letter explains how to do it properly.

What the law actually says

In Northern Ireland, age discrimination in employment is covered by the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations (NI) 2006. In England, Scotland and Wales, equivalent protection comes from the Equality Act 2010. The principles are the same: it is unlawful to treat someone less favourably because of their age, and it is unlawful to harass someone in a way related to their age.

There are four types of discrimination at work that can apply: direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, harassment, and victimisation. The remarks described in this case, if proven, could amount to direct discrimination and harassment. Questioning someone’s interest in training because of their age, or suggesting they’re just running down the clock to retirement, are exactly the kind of age-related assumptions that equality law is designed to prevent.

There’s a persistent myth in workplaces that older employees are less capable with technology, harder to train, and less committed to development. Research submitted to the UK Parliament found that many employers hold these negative views about older workers, including the specific assumption that they have “poor IT skills,” even while claiming not to see age discrimination as a problem in their organisation.

The reality is that the law doesn’t care about assumptions. It cares about evidence. An employee with 40 years of consistently strong performance reviews is not suddenly incapable because she’s older. If an employer has concerns about any employee’s technology skills, the answer is to offer training and support, not to question whether they’re interested in learning “at their age.”

PwC’s track record

This isn’t PwC’s first encounter with age discrimination claims. In the United States, PwC agreed to pay $11.625 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging that its recruitment practices systematically favoured younger applicants. The plaintiffs argued that PwC’s heavy reliance on campus recruiting effectively shut out older candidates from entry-level positions, a form of age discrimination during recruitment that remains common across many industries. As part of that settlement, PwC committed to advertising jobs to older applicants and removing graduation year requirements from its hiring process.

Different jurisdictions, different legal frameworks, different facts. But when age discrimination allegations surface repeatedly against the same global employer, it raises questions about whether the problem is individual managers behaving badly, or something more systemic in the culture.

What I think

This settlement was reached without any admission of liability. PwC has said it is “very sorry for the experience this employee had” and has committed to working with the Equality Commission to review its equal opportunities policies, procedures and practices. That language is carefully chosen, and I don’t doubt lawyers spent time on it.

But £150,000, the loss of a 40-year career, and a requirement to review your equality policies doesn’t happen when everything was fine. Something went wrong here.

I think cases like this expose a broader problem with how large employers handle discrimination complaints. The internal grievance route, which employees are always encouraged to follow first, is inherently conflicted. The employer is investigating itself. The people conducting the investigation often have professional relationships with the people being complained about. And the outcome, as here, is frequently a finding that falls short of acknowledging any legal liability.

The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland played a vital role in this case, and Geraldine McGahey put it well: older workers bring valuable experience, skills and insight to the workforce. They are not problems to be managed out.

If this sounds familiar

If you’re an older worker experiencing comments about your age, your technology skills, your retirement plans, or your “energy levels,” don’t ignore it. These remarks are not banter. They’re not well-meaning observations. They may be unlawful.

Keep a written record of what was said, when, and by whom. If your employer has a grievance process, use it, but be realistic about what it may achieve. If the grievance doesn’t resolve things, or makes them worse, you have the right to bring a claim to an employment tribunal. You generally have three months minus one day from the act of discrimination to submit a claim, so don’t wait.

Discrimination claims are not subject to the usual compensation cap that applies in unfair dismissal cases. Injury to feelings awards are assessed using the Vento bands, which are split into three tiers: the lower band (£1,200 to £12,100) for less serious cases, the middle band (£12,100 to £36,400) for serious cases, and the upper band (£36,400 to £60,700) for the most serious cases involving prolonged campaigns of harassment. Interest at 8% per annum can also be claimed on top.

A note for readers in Northern Ireland: this case was brought under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations (NI) 2006, which provide similar protections to the Equality Act 2010 in Great Britain. Similar time limits apply, but the tribunal system in Northern Ireland operates separately. Our firm represents employees in England and Wales. If you’re based in Northern Ireland, the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland can advise you on your options.

If you’re in England or Wales and think you’ve been discriminated against because of your age, no win no fee employment solicitors can assess your case without any upfront cost. You can also read our guide to how employment tribunals work if you’re unsure about the process.