In Partners in Logistics Limited v. Eugene McEnery (EDA2633) the Labour Court (the “Court”) held that the Respondent could not rely on the retirement age clause in the Complainant’s contract of employment after having allowed the Complainant to work past the mandatory retirement age. The Court found that the Complainant had been discriminated against on the ground of age after his employment was terminated a number of months after he turned 65 years old.
The Complainant succeeded in his appeal against the WRC decision (ADJ-00052442). The WRC Adjudicator had been satisfied that while there were shortcomings, in the “overall context”, the retirement age applied was objectively and reasonably justified by legitimate aims and the means of achieving these aims were appropriate and necessary, and accordingly found that the Complainant had not been discriminated against.
Facts: The Complainant was a Warehouse Operative who had worked for the Respondent since 2003. Before his 65th birthday in December 2023, he made a request to continue his employment beyond the mandatory retirement age. The Respondent granted him an extension until April 2024 when they informed the Complainant that he could either retire or work a three-day week. The Complainant refused both options, and he was informed on 23rd April that his employment would terminate in 8 weeks’ time. The Complainant’s employment terminated on 14th June 2024. He submitted that he was not provided with access to an independent appeals process.
The Complainant submitted that after the meeting on 23rd April he received unagreed minutes which incorrectly stated that the Complainant had agreed that some duties were not suitable for him due to the physical nature of the work. On 30th April 2024, the Respondent wrote to the Complainant and addressed various issues raised by him and confirmed that his employment would terminate on 14th June 2024. On 2nd May 2024, the Complainant responded, making it clear that he did not agree with that position. He received no reply to that letter.
The Complainant argued that the Respondent did not have an established retirement age as other employees continued to work beyond 65 without reducing their hours of work. The Complainant further submitted that there was no evidence of a legitimate aim or objective justification for a mandatory retirement age. The Respondent disagreed.
The Respondent’s position was that the suggestion of a three-day working arrangement was in fact initially made by the Complainant. It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that the role itself was physically demanding and that it had previously made exceptions for the Complainant who suffers from medical issues whereby his hands get extremely cold. He would wear gloves while working and this restricted many of the manual duties required for the role, which the Respondent had accommodated. The Respondent had also accommodated him by assigning him work within a heated area. When operations moved to a smaller warehouse, the Respondent submitted that it was no longer feasible to continue to accommodate the Complainant’s medical condition, but they made reasonable efforts to identify other duties. According to the Respondent, the Complainant failed to engage with those efforts.
It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that each employee wanting to work beyond the retirement age was required to submit a request for an extension, each of which were assessed on an individual basis.
The Respondent contended that the termination of the Complainant’s employment was not discrimination but was “based on legitimate business-related considerations that were necessary for the proper functioning of the workplace.”
Decision: The Court was satisfied that the Respondent had a mandatory retirement age of 65 years in place. The Court found that it was clear from the correspondence issued to the Complainant that the only reason that was provided to him for the termination of his employment was his age. The Court rejected the Respondent’s argument that the termination of his employment was due to a decrease of work available as the termination letter made no mention of this.
The Court noted that the termination of the Complainant’s employment because of his age would be discriminatory unless it fell within one of the exemptions contained in the Employment Equality Acts.
(i) Section 34(4)
The Court examined section 34(4) of the Acts which permits employers to have a mandatory retirement age provided that it is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.
The Court explained that by agreeing to an extension of the Complainant’s employment beyond the Respondent’s retirement age, the Respondent effectively waived their right to rely on the mandatory retirement clause in the Complainant’s contract of employment and thus the limited exception under section 34(4) could not be relied upon.
(ii) Section 6(3)(c)
Section 6(3)(c) of the Employment Equality Acts permits employers to provide a fixed term contract after an employee reaches the retirement age, if it is “objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary”. The terms of the arrangement agreed by the Respondent were not written and there was no time limit stipulated as to when the extension would end. The Court found the arrangement to be “open ended”, noting that the extension to the Complainant’s employment was not “underpinned” by a fixed-term contract. Therefore, section 6(3)(c) could not be relied upon by the Respondent.
The Court determined that the Complainant’s employment was terminated due to his age and the limited exemptions did not apply. The Court awarded him €15,000 for discrimination on the ground of age.
Takeaway for Employers: The area of mandatory retirement is a tricky one. Employers in Ireland are permitted to fix mandatory retirement ages, but it is crucial to ensure that an employee’s contract of employment clearly stipulates the retirement age. Furthermore, employers must be able to demonstrate that the retirement age is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, and that the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.
What this case highlights is that if an employer agrees to permit an employee to work beyond its retirement age, it must issue the employee with a fixed term contract stipulating the details of the extension, and the start and end date to fall within the limited exemptions.
What is also interesting about this case is that while the Adjudicator in the WRC considered the Respondent’s actions with reference to the 2017 Code of Practice on Longer Working, there was no such reference reflected in the written decision of the Labour Court.
Links:
Labour Court Decision: https://workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2026/july/eda2633.html
WRC Decision https://workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2025/february/adj-00052442.html
Authors: Jenny Wakely and Nadien Allakarami
07/09/2026
If you found this article useful you might like our employment law newsletter. We write monthly articles, like this, covering interesting cases, decisions, news and developments in Ireland.