Colette Quinn

An Garda Síochána

WRC held that Complainant was not discriminated on grounds of age when mandatory retirement age of 60 was enforced.

In 2022, the Complainant, a Garda Superintendent, retired at the “mandatory” age of 60. She had held statutory and leadership roles in the Garda Youth Diversion Programme. Despite her qualifications, including a law degree and management certifications, she did not apply for an extension, believing such requests were not being granted for Superintendents at the time. Following her retirement, a civil servant at Principal Officer level was appointed to her role without an open competition. This marked the first time a non-Garda held the position. The Complainant argued that her mandatory retirement was discriminatory based on age, as her successor, a civil servant, could work until 70 (with the possibility of extension to 72 under public service regulations). She contended that there was no legitimate employment policy or transparent succession plan to justify the appointment process. Relying on case law, she asserted that the Gardaí failed to provide an objective and necessary justification for the disparity. The Complainant claimed she was unlawfully dismissed due to age discrimination and sought remedial orders for the discriminatory treatment she experienced.

The Respondent relied on the Supreme Court in Mallon v Minister for Justice [2024] IESC 20 which upheld the principle that different treatment based on age does not constitute discrimination if it meets the test of objective and reasonable justification linked to a legitimate aim. The Court identified several legitimate aims supporting mandatory retirement at 70, including forward planning, recruitment, age balance, intergenerational fairness, and consistency. The Court affirmed that a mandatory retirement rule does not violate the prohibition on age discrimination if the aims are legitimate and the measure is proportionate, even without an individual assessment. It further confirmed that a mandatory retirement measure may be justified even if the specific aim is not explicitly stated in legislation or collective agreements but can be inferred from its general context.

The Adjudicator found that the Complainant, despite being a competent manager, was not discriminated against on the grounds of age. While she was required to retire at 60, the mandatory retirement age was justified by legitimate aims, including consistency in retirement ages, succession planning, and operational efficiency. The WRC noted that while her successor, a civil servant, could work until 70, this did not create inconsistency, as the powers, responsibilities, and employment conditions of Gardaí and civil servants were fundamentally different. They also found that the Complainant did not apply for an extension and could not claim discrimination based on an assumed refusal. The policy was deemed reasonable and proportionate, with sufficient justification for different retirement ages within separate cohorts. Consequently, the WRC ruled that the Complainant had not been unlawfully discriminated against under the Employment Equality Acts 1998–2015.

Employers should:

1. Ensure that mandatory retirement policies are objectively justified by legitimate aims, such as workforce planning and operational efficiency (see the S.I. No. 600/2017 - Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice on Longer Working) (Declaration) Order 2017). Consistency and transparency in applying retirement policies are crucial to avoiding potential claims of age discrimination.
2. Carefully assess whether differing retirement ages are justified by the distinct nature of the roles. As seen in this case, the distinction between Gardaí and civil servants, despite some role overlap, was considered a valid justification for different retirement ages (document the reasoning behind such decisions to support any future challenges).
3. Ensure that employees are aware of any application process for retirement extensions, preventing assumptions about eligibility. Policies should be regularly reviewed to align with evolving workforce needs and legal standards.

The full case can be found here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2025/february/adj-00044613.html