Selina Scott's Employment Tribunal claim of age discrimination against Channel Five has attracted significant media attention. She alleges that Channel Five withdrew an offer to her of a valuable contract to cover for Natasha Kaplinsky when she is on maternity leave. Selina Scott, who is 57, alleges that she was not awarded the contract because of her age. Channel Five gave the job to two presenters, who were aged 28 and 32.

Selina Scott is not the first person in the media to make an allegation of age discrimination. It was widely reported that Moira Stuart quit the BBC due to their alleged age prejudice.

The reporting of such cases is not necessarily of professional interest or use to HR professionals in their day-to-day work. The issues in such cases are often factual, rather than legal, as the question is usually whether age was a factor in the decision-making process. They are not, one might say, "law-making". What they do achieve is a raising of the profile of age discrimination making it more likely that "ordinary" employees will make such claims of their own.

The law prohibiting age discrimination has been in force for nearly two years and until recently it seems the long predicted and eagerly awaited influx of claims in the Employment Tribunal has failed to materialise. So why is this and will the public plight of media celebrities change this?

There are good reasons why you would expect older employees to rely on this law. The current problems in the economy and the pension crisis mean that there is much more of a financial incentive for individuals to assert their rights. Many have seen their pension pots significantly reduce in value, meaning it is much more difficult to retire at an age when people would have done in past years.

There are also a number of reasons why such claims have not hit the Employment Tribunals. There is an inherent lack of certainty in the application of any new law which will obviously deter people from relying on it given the risks of an unfavourable outcome. This is a particular issue with age discrimination as it is often very difficult to apply the law due to the problems involved in reconciling the legal position with the practical realities. A good example of this is how to deal with employee benefits which it may be too expensive or impossible for an employer to provide once an employee reaches a certain age - the law is unclear on what rights an employee may have and there has not been a judicial ruling on this to date.

One usually finds with discrimination laws that greater reliance by employees on the rights afforded to them comes with time. Discrimination laws tend to have a longer term culture-changing effect, rather than an immediate big-bang impact.

The vast majority of Employment Tribunal claims which have been reported in the legal/HR press have been obvious examples of discrimination or have involved potential high level damages, thereby increasing the impetus to take action.

Heyday's challenge to the forced retirement provisions, which potentially allow employers to retire employees at 65, may also lead to an increase in the number of claims. The Government indicated its intention to review the law on this in due course in any event so change at some stage is likely.

Whilst therefore allegations and claims made by media celebrities may not have a direct impact on the work of HR professionals, it may serve to encourage employees to bring claims. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next couple of years.