Age and Work

An employer may set a minimum age up to 18 years when recruiting for a position.

An employer can set different ages for retirement of employees if the retirement age can be objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means to achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

Occupational benefits (such as illness benefits, or severance pay) can be different for individual employees based on their age. However, this difference in treatment applies only to the age ground. If a term in a collective agreement provides that the length of service would otherwise be regarded as equal, seniority may be determined by reference to relative ages of employees.

Anything done in compliance with employment law, including the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act 1996 and the National Minimum Wages Act 2000 is not discrimination under the Employment Equality Acts.

Different treatment is allowed by vocational or training bodies in relation to:

• fees and the allocation of places to people who are Irish citizens or EU nationals and those who are not.
• assistance to particular categories of persons by way of sponsorships, scholarships, bursaries, but only to the extent that the assistance is reasonably justified having regard to traditional and historical considerations.

Different treatment is allowed by universities or other third level institutions in relation to the allocation of places for mature students.

Under the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 and the Pensions Acts 1990-2011 differing treatment on the Age Ground is permissible in certain circumstances and may not constitute a breach of the principle of equal pension treatment.

Provided there is no discrimination on the Gender Ground, a scheme can treat persons with different ages or lengths of service differently when deciding to fix ages for admission under an occupational benefit scheme or for entitlement to benefits under the scheme, including fixing different ages for employees or groups of categories of employees.

The Defence Forces are allowed to treat employees differently on grounds of age and disability.

You may face discrimination at work on the ground of age if your employer imposes a compulsory retirement age – and you believe this is unfair. It may also be discrimination on the ground of age if your employer offers you a fixed-term contract after you reach the compulsory retirement age.

The laws that apply are the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 (EEA). 

The Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977-2015 may also apply if you are dismissed before reaching the normal retirement age for employees who are doing a similar job for the same employer.  

A compulsory retirement age is the age at which an employee must retire. It is also sometimes called a mandatory retirement age or an upper retirement age. This age is often stated in an employment contract. It can vary depending on the employer and the terms of the employment contract. For more information see our guide: Retirement and Fixed Term Contracts Guidelines. 

No. A compulsory retirement age may be established in various ways:

• In an employment contract
• In an employee handbook – which must be widely available to employees
• In a collective agreement – which you must be aware of and must have accepted
• By custom and practice in the workplace – which everyone there should know about (or could easily find out about)
• By law – for example, for workers in public services such as the civil service or An Garda Síochána

Compulsory retirement age limits also apply to members of the Defence Forces, but these are not covered by the EEA’s age discrimination laws. 

Yes. Your employer may have good reasons to expect you to retire at a certain age or to limit the length of your service. 

Although discrimination on grounds of age is generally illegal, the law allows for a range of exceptions to the rule. These are set out in sections 34(4) and 6(3)(c) of the EEA. 

If you complain about age discrimination, and your employer disputes your complaint, the WRC will assess whether the employer has ‘objective justification’ for their policy. This means the WRC will decide whether the employer’s arguments are fair in the circumstances. 

To justify their action and avoid a charge of illegal age discrimination, the employer must show that compulsory retirement or a fixed-term contract is necessary to achieve a ‘legitimate aim’. 

What is a legitimate aim? 

A legitimate aim must relate to: 

• The public interest regarding employment policy – for example, whether older workers benefit the economy or put people’s safety at risk, or  
• The labour market – for example, whether older people are seen as filling a gap or blocking opportunities for young jobseekers, or  
• Vocational training – for example, whether skilled workers should stay on to help train apprentices or should make way for new recruits with up-to-date technical knowledge  

A legitimate aim cannot be for the benefit of the employer only. For example, an employer cannot use the need to save money on wages as a lawful excuse for making you retire. Cost cutting would not count as a legitimate aim so would not justify discriminating against an older worker. 

Legitimate aims can include:

• Encouraging recruitment
• Encouraging young people to enter professions
• Workforce planning
• Enabling the armed forces, police, prison or emergency services to function effectively
• Avoiding disputes concerning employees’ fitness to work
• Protecting health and safety at work

When an employer has identified a legitimate aim for fixing a compulsory retirement age or offering a fixed-term contract, they must show their actions: 

• Are reasonable and linked to the legitimate aim (this is called ‘objective justification’)
• Are appropriate and necessary to achieve the legitimate aim
• Do not go further than what is necessary to achieve the legitimate aim

If an employer cannot show these three things, the WRC may decide their actions amount to discrimination on the ground of age.

Example: Garda retire at a certain age

In some jobs, there are ‘genuine occupational requirements’ that mean age limits are not illegal. For example, work in the emergency services or An Garda Síochána demands a high level of physical strength and stamina. To ensure the job can be done effectively, fire or police officers can be asked to retire at a certain age or continue on fixed-term contracts with annual medical check-ups. Age limits here have objective justification and are not considered illegal discrimination, as they are a reasonable way to achieve the legitimate aim of providing effective public services.

Example: Engineer forced to retire at 65 from physically demanding job

A 65-year-old engineer appealed to the Labour Court after his complaint of age discrimination was turned down by the WRC. His employer had refused to extend his contract to the age of 70. The engineer argued that he was fit and well and knew of another employee who had been allowed to work until they were 70. 

The employer argued that its employee handbook and retirement plan both made clear that service engineers had to retire at 65, and the employee who worked to 70 had a desk job. It noted that the work of a service engineer was physically demanding and critical to workplace safety. The employer also argued that it was also specialised work, involving six years’ training, therefore mandatory age limits made it easier for the company to plan for a reliable succession of skilled engineers. The court agreed that the employer was justified in imposing a compulsory retirement age on the grounds of safety, efficiency and workforce planning. 

Example: Giving opportunities to younger staff justifies compulsory retirement

An employee complained about having to retire at 65 as no retirement age was written into their contract of employment. The employer argued that retirement at 65 was customary at the firm and served to create opportunities to promote more junior staff. Internal promotion allowed better business planning, helped the firm retain staff and was good for morale. The WRC agreed that this was a legitimate aim, which justified the practice of compulsory retirement, so it did not uphold the complaint of age discrimination in this case.

Example: Civil servant forced to retire won her case at the WRC 

A 65-year-old civil servant with an exemplary work record complained to the WRC because she was not allowed to continue at work for another five years, although several colleagues had stayed on after 65. Her employer argued that the compulsory retirement age enabled the promotion of younger staff and a better balance of age groups within the office. The WRC considered this argument was unfair as other employees had been kept on to the age of 70. It awarded the complainant €82,000 compensation on the ground of age discrimination. 

Example: Tradition is no excuse for compulsory retirement 

A bookkeeper complained to the WRC about having to retire at 65, noting that a previous employee had worked until they were 66. Although there was no written contract stating the retirement age, the employers said it was implied by oral agreement. They assumed they had a traditional right to end their workers’ employment at 65. The WRC considered this reasoning to be vague and unlawful. They upheld the complaint of unjustified discrimination on the ground of age and awarded compensation of €12,000 to the bookkeeper. 

Example: Employer cannot just assume work is too risky for the over 65s

A sales assistant-cum-repair technician complained about compulsory retirement at an electrical retail shop. He noted that another employee had worked until they were 73. He said he felt fully capable of continuing to work, and no health and safety report had indicated otherwise. The employer argued that the repairs workshop was too hazardous for a person over 65. However, the WRC held that the employer failed to justify this argument, as it was not supported by any medical report or risk assessment. The employee was awarded €18,000 compensation for discrimination on the ground of age.

Example: Tram driver must retire at 65 for health and safety reasons

A tram driver complained to both the WRC and the Labour Court about having to retire at 65. The employer argued that retirement at 65 was sensible for several reasons. It was the established retirement age for the whole company, which made workforce planning more straightforward. And it was essential to public safety that drivers were fit and well enough to be in charge of a tram. The Court agreed that a compulsory retirement age of 65 for tram drivers was reasonable on health and safety grounds and was in line with labour market policy and the law.

Your employer may be justified in offering you a fixed-term contract to meet a legitimate aim, such as workforce planning. But if that contract contained discriminatory terms and conditions, it would have no legal justification under the EEA. For example, an employer could not justify moving older warehouse staff onto fixed-term contracts if those contracts barred employees over 65 from serving customers on the public sales counter – even if the policy was meant to encourage promotion among younger staff.