Strictly Age Discrimination: the Arlene saga rumbles on

Selina Scott - who recently settled her age discrimination case against Channel 5 for an undisclosed five figure sum - has waded into the row over Arlene Phillips' unceremonious eviction from Strictly Come Dancing. Arlene (66) is being replaced by Alesha Dixon (30), presumably to contribute to an aim by Auntie Beeb to target younger viewers. It's worth remembering that Alesha is a former contestant of the programme, and is not a professional dancer or choreographer.

The Age Discrimination Regulations tell us that a person A will be discriminating against another person B if he treats B less favourably than he would treat a comparator "on grounds of B's age". The comparator will be another person whose relevant circumstances are the same, or not materially different, to those of B. Unlike other forms of discrimination, direct age discrimination can be justified, so long as the discriminatory treatment is "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".

So what's a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" when it's at home? Some examples of legitimate aims which might justify age discrimination have been given by the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS). These include "facilitation of employment planning", "particular training requirements", "encouraging and rewarding loyalty" and "recruiting or retaining older people". An aim which it believed would not be legitimate would be where "a retailer of trendy fashion items wants to employ young shop assistants because it believes this will contribute to its aim of targeting young buyers".

It may just be us, but doesn't Selina have a point? Anyway, you can read what Selina had to say here...