The Labour Court held that An Garda Síochána did not discriminate on age grounds in compulsorily retiring a civilian driver at 70, confirming that there is no discretion to extend employment beyond the statutory retirement age.

The Complainant claimed that An Garda Síochána discriminated against him on the age ground under the Employment Equality Act 1998 when it compulsorily retired him at 70. He had joined the Department of Justice in 2000 as a Civilian Driver and transferred to the Garda organisation in 2006. At the outset his contract carried a mandatory retirement age of 65, later extended to 70 by the Public Service Superannuation (Age of Retirement) Act 2018. Mr Ronan worked beyond 65 on a one-year extension and then continued until March 2023, when he turned 70. Before that date he sought permission to remain employed but his request was refused. He argued that the refusal was discriminatory because other civilian drivers, hired between 2004 and 2012, had no compulsory retirement age under the public-service rules then in force. In his view, he performed the same driving duties and met all medical standards, including passing a fitness assessment and renewing his driving licence for five more years in February 2023. By being forced to retire solely because of his age while colleagues of a similar grade could keep working indefinitely, he alleged that the Gardaí treated him less favourably because of age and breached the Act.

An Garda Síochána denied any unlawful discrimination and maintained that the retirement strictly followed statutory requirements. They pointed out that public-service retirement ages differ according to when an employee entered service. Staff who, like the Complainant, joined before April 2004 were originally subject to a compulsory retirement age of 65, later increased to 70 by the 2018 Act. Those recruited between 2004 and 2012 (“new entrants”) having no mandatory retirement age, while those joining after 2013 under the Single Pension Scheme also retire at 70. According to the Gardaí, these categories reflect national legislation and policy decisions on workforce planning, inter-generational fairness, pensions funding and age diversity, not any individual choice by the organisation. The Respondent argued that equality law requires a claimant to compare himself only with others in the same legal category, i.e. pre-2004 entrants, all of whom face the same age-70 limit. Since the Gardaí had no discretion to retain an employee beyond 70 and consistently applied the statutory rules, there was no less-favourable treatment and therefore no discrimination. They also highlighted that he continued to receive full pension entitlements and that the refusal of an extension was mandated by law rather than by any policy of the Garda organisation.

The Labour Court found the claim of age discrimination could not succeed. It relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mallon v Minister for Justice [2024] IESC 20, which confirmed that a mandatory retirement age of 70 for public servants is fully compatible with EU equality law. Collins J. in Mallon emphasised that Member States have a wide discretion to set retirement ages to meet social-policy objectives and that a limit of 70 is well above the 65 to 68 ages repeatedly accepted by the Court of Justice of the European Union as proportionate. The Supreme Court noted that 70 is also higher than Ireland’s current pensionable age of 66, further supporting its reasonableness. Thus, applying this binding precedent, the Court found that the Garda Síochána merely implemented the Public Service Superannuation (Age of Retirement) Act 2018, which raised the Complainant’s own retirement age from 65 to 70 and left no discretion to extend employment beyond that age. His comparison with colleagues recruited between 2004 and 2012 was rejected as inappropriate, because that group was deliberately treated differently for historical and contractual reasons.

As this case concerned a statutory retirement regime for public servants, the Court offered little direct guidance for private employers. However, it indirectly reinforces two points relevant to all organisations:

• Follow the law precisely. Where retirement ages are specifically set by statute, employers have no real discretion to extend employment.     
   
  
• Know your cohorts and contracts. Different recruitment periods may create distinct retirement conditions; consistent documentation and clear communication of those terms are essential to avoid claims of unequal treatment.

The full case can be found here.