Mandatory Retirement Ages Can Be Lawful: What Employers Can Learn from Two Labour Court Decisions
A mandatory retirement age does not automatically amount to age discrimination.
That is an important takeaway for employers following two recent Labour Court decisions involving retained firefighters and local authorities.
In one case, the Labour Court overturned a €15,000 Workplace Relations Commission award for age discrimination after finding that the application of the mandatory retirement age was objectively justified.
In a separate case, another retained firefighter was unsuccessful in a claim arising from his retirement arrangements after the Court placed significant weight on the clear wording of his original contract of employment.
For employers, the decisions are not a licence to impose arbitrary retirement ages. Instead, they reinforce the importance of clear contractual terms, legitimate objectives and being able to justify why a compulsory retirement age is appropriate and necessary.
The first case: a €15,000 WRC award overturned
Paul Curran had served as a retained firefighter with Carlow County Council for almost 40 years.
Retained firefighters had historically been subject to specific mandatory retirement arrangements. The retirement age had developed over time, with extensions available subject to medical and fitness requirements.
Mr Curran reached the applicable retirement age of 60 in December 2023.
At that point, discussions had already taken place concerning a proposed increase in the retirement age to 62, but the change had not yet been formally implemented.
Carlow County Council maintained that it remained bound by the rules then in force and was required to retire him at 60.
The Workplace Relations Commission subsequently found that Mr Curran had been discriminated against on the age ground and awarded him €15,000.
On appeal, however, the Labour Court overturned that award and concluded that the retirement requirement was appropriate and necessary.
A retirement age still requires objective justification
The important point for employers is that a mandatory retirement age is not automatically lawful simply because it appears in a contract, policy or established practice.
Irish equality law prohibits discrimination on the age ground, subject to provisions allowing different retirement ages where they are objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.
The WRC's Code of Practice on Longer Working identifies examples of objectives which may potentially amount to legitimate aims, including:
- Health and safety, particularly in safety-critical occupations;
- Intergenerational fairness;
- Succession planning;
- Creating a balanced age structure within a workforce;
- Supporting opportunities for promotion; and
- Other genuine workforce planning considerations.
The existence of a retirement age is only the beginning of the analysis. Employers must be able to explain why that age exists and why enforcing it is proportionate.
Safety-critical roles may justify different considerations
The context of these cases is particularly important.
Firefighting is a physically demanding and safety-critical occupation. The legal assessment of a mandatory retirement age in such a role may therefore be very different from the assessment applied to an office-based or less physically demanding position.
Employers should avoid assuming that a decision concerning firefighters automatically supports the use of the same retirement age elsewhere.
Context matters. A retirement age that can be justified for one category of employee may not necessarily be justified for another.
The second case: clear contractual wording mattered
A separate Labour Court case involved Kildare County Council retained firefighter Paul O'Dwyer.
Mr O'Dwyer had joined the retained fire service in 1988. His contract stated that the mandatory retirement age for firefighters was 55.
Station and substation officers could potentially remain in employment beyond that point at the discretion of the Chief Fire Officer.
Mr O'Dwyer maintained that he had previously received an assurance that, if promoted to the relevant grade, he would be able to remain until 65.
He ultimately moved to another position within the council after approaching the end of his retained firefighter service and claimed that the council had breached his contract.
The Labour Court found that the original contractual wording concerning the retirement age was unambiguous and that any extensions were discretionary.
His claim was unsuccessful.
Employers should make retirement provisions clear
The second decision highlights a practical issue that applies far beyond the fire service.
If an organisation operates a mandatory retirement age, employees should not have to piece it together from pension documents, historical practices or informal conversations.
Employers should ensure that contracts and policies clearly address:
- The applicable retirement age;
- Whether that age is mandatory;
- The basis for the retirement age;
- Whether extensions may be considered;
- Whether an extension is discretionary;
- The procedure for seeking to continue working; and
- How any request will be considered.
Ambiguity around retirement arrangements creates unnecessary legal risk.
The law on contractual retirement ages changed in June 2026
These decisions also arrive against an important change in Ireland's retirement law landscape.
The Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Act 2025 came into operation on 29 June 2026.
The legislation introduced a new right for certain employees who are approaching a contractual retirement age below the qualifying age for the State pension.
Where an eligible employee notifies their employer that they do not consent to retire at that age and wish to remain until State pension age, an employer cannot simply rely on the existing contractual retirement clause.
If the employer proposes to proceed with retirement, it must be able to show that the retirement of the employee concerned is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim and that enforcing the retirement is appropriate and necessary.
A reasoned written response is also required where an employer intends to enforce the retirement age following a valid notification.
What these decisions do not mean
Employers should not read these cases as blanket permission to retire employees because of age.
Mandatory retirement remains an area in which age discrimination issues can arise.
The circumstances of the role, the contractual arrangements, the employer's objectives and the proportionality of the retirement requirement all matter.
An employer relying solely on a sentence in a decades-old employment contract without considering the current legal position could expose itself to a claim.
Equally, an employer should not assume that because a particular retirement age has always existed, it will automatically withstand scrutiny.
What should employers do now?
Employers operating mandatory retirement ages should consider reviewing their arrangements rather than waiting until an employee challenges them.
Key questions include:
- Is the retirement age clearly documented?
- Is it contained in the employee's contract or applicable policy?
- What legitimate aim is the retirement age intended to achieve?
- Is the particular age appropriate and necessary to achieve that aim?
- Is the same retirement age appropriate for every role?
- Are safety or fitness considerations genuinely relevant?
- Is there a process for employees who wish to work longer?
- Does the Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Act 2025 apply?
- Are managers aware of the new notification and response requirements?
- Can the organisation evidence the reasoning behind its decision?
The ability to produce a documented rationale may be just as important as the wording of the retirement clause itself.
The wider lesson for employers
The Labour Court decisions demonstrate that mandatory retirement ages can, in appropriate circumstances, withstand legal challenge.
But the safest conclusion for employers is not simply that “mandatory retirement is lawful.”
The better conclusion is that employers need to understand why a retirement age applies, ensure that the contractual position is clear and be prepared to justify their approach if challenged.
A retirement age should never exist simply because “that is the way it has always been done.”
Employers should review contractual retirement provisions, longer-working procedures and the objective justification supporting any compulsory retirement age in light of the changing legal landscape.
This article is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained in relation to individual circumstances.
