Background:

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent in 1999. His employment was terminated on 12th January 2021. The Complainant turned 66 on 13th January 2021. The Complainant had been on pandemic-related lay-off and was informed by the Respondent in August 2020 that the service was closing. The retirement age as per the Respondent’s policy had been 65 but this was raised to 66. The Complainant submitted that some staff had worked into their 70s. 

The Respondent submitted the complaint was lodged with the Workplace Relations Commission later than six months of the ‘last date of discrimination’ as stated on the complaint form. It was submitted the Complainant could not show reasonable cause to allow the complaint to be heard. It was further submitted the Complainant had not cited a comparator.

The Respondent outlined that the pandemic had a big impact on the service the Complainant worked in. The Respondent outlined that the service the Complainant was working in was phased out over the course of 2020, albeit the Complainant was not made redundant. The Respondent relied on the retirement age set out in the contract of employment, as amended over the years.

The Adjudication Officer (AO) stated that it was clear that this case was about the ending of the Complainant’s employment on 12th January 2021. The complaint was lodged in February 2021, and this was well within the six-month period. Therefore, the complaint was submitted in time.

The AO noted that the Respondent relied on the Complainant reaching the age of 66 as justification for his dismissal. The AO found that this was clearly a dismissal related to age. It was found it was discriminatory as the Respondent did not show an objective justification for the dismissal.

The AO stated as this was not an equal pay claim, the Complainant was not required to cite a comparator. He must show less favourable treatment on grounds of age, i.e. that he was dismissed because of his age. 

Outcome:

The AO found that the Complainant had been discriminated against in his dismissal on account of his age and ordered the Respondent to pay the Complainant the sum of €31,830 in compensation.

Practical Guidance for Employers: 

The Employment Equality Acts prohibits discrimination on the ground of age. Direct discrimination is permitted on the age ground, where justified. In respect of retirement ages, it falls on the employer to show that there was objective justification to rely on a retirement age, i.e. to show that the dismissal was objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim and that the means of achieving this aim were appropriate and necessary.

The full case is here:
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2023/january/adj-00032186.html