The Complainant worked for the Respondent on a two-year fixed term contract. His employment ended on the 20th June 2018, at the expiry of the fixed term. The Respondent did not renew the fixed term contract, nor did it accept the Complainant's application for the advertised role. The Complainant asserted that he had been subjected to discrimination on the grounds of age. The Respondent denied the claim of discrimination and stated that it had a retirement age of 66 which is applicable to all staff.

In February 2018, the Respondent emailed all staff to say that the retirement age had been raised to 66. The Complainant received a phone call that day to acknowledge that he would turn 66 on the 23rd April 2018.  The Complainant outlined how his role was then advertised internally, and he applied for the role on the 11th April 2018. He was informed that his application was not processed. The Complainant said that he applied again as an external candidate and was told by the Respondent that he would not be considered because of his age.

In September 2018, the public body invited the Complainant to consult in another paid role. He said that, when seeking this role, no one has asked him about his age, but they did ask him about his knowledge. The Complainant later had no option but to leave the permanent job as it had a retirement age of 70. The Complainant submitted that this was a flagrant breach of the Employment Equality Act and the Respondent had not advanced any objective justification for the ending of his employment.

The Respondent submitted that there was no discrimination in this case. The Complainant’s two-year fixed term contract came to an end and his application was not processed because he was then above the retirement age of 66. The Respondent stated that this was justified by the Complainant’s entitlement to pension. The Respondent claimed that manpower planning allows the employer to anticipate people retiring, i.e. to train people in advance of pending retirements. Furthermore, the Respondent submitted that it had the same retirement age for all employees and so there can be no discrimination.

The Adjudicating Officer stated that it was not necessary to use the blunt indicia of age when fitness could have been readily assessed in other ways. This possibility was not considered by the Respondent. Therefore, the Complainant’s role with the Respondent ended through unlawful and less favourable treatment. Accordingly, the Complainant was awarded compensation in the sum of €22,000.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2020/may/adj-00018823.html