The End of Blanket Retirement Ages? Navigating Ireland’s New Legal Landscape

In recent years, it has become increasingly common to see employees challenging blanket mandatory retirement ages in their employment contracts. This is not surprising, given Ireland’s aging population, and the need for employers to balance succession planning. This issue has been heightened by the need for individuals to remain in the workforce longer in order to combat financial hardship, such as inflation and the ever-rising cost of living.

Such challenges to mandatory retirement ages have led to a litany of recent decisions from the Workplace Relations Commission (“the WRC”), and a notable, landmark decision by the Irish Supreme Court.

The cumulative impact of this evolving case law is also reflected in the arrival of the highly anticipated Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Act 2025

The Current Legal Framework

There is no statutory mandatory retirement age in the private sector. Instead, employers have the discretion to set their own retirement age policies, subject to compliance with relevant legislation, codes of practice (such as the Code of Practice on Longer Working), collective agreements, and individual employment contracts. Accordingly, it has become increasingly common to see employers set a contractual retirement age of 65 or to implement wording which brings the retirement age ‘in line with the State pensionable age’, which is currently 66.

Recent case law however, has illustrated that employees are actively challenging blanket mandatory retirement ages; particularly in circumstances where such set mandatory retirement ages are not objectively justifiable by a legitimate aim.

The Case Law

In Thomas Doolin v Eir Business Eircom Limited[1], Mr Doolin brought a complaint to the WRC under the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015, claiming that he had been discriminated against on the grounds of age.

The Adjudicator found that the Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination when he was mandatorily retired by the Respondent on the grounds of age on his 65^th birthday. The Respondent failed to rebut this prima facie case of discrimination. Despite the Complainant’s formal request to work past the age of 65, the Respondent declined his appeal citing a universal retirement age policy within the company.

The Adjudicator considered whether there was objective justification for the mandatory retirement age of 65. In examining factors such as intergenerational fairness, succession planning, and health and safety concerns, it was found that retaining the Complainant would not impede his colleagues’ career progression or disrupt succession planning. Given the desk-based nature of the Complainant’s role as a desktop support agent, health and safety concerns related to field-based positions put forward by the Respondent were deemed irrelevant. Furthermore, there was no record of any notable dip in performance, nor any historical performance issues to justify the decision to mandatorily retire the Complainant.

The Adjudicator concluded that the Respondent’s decision to retire the Complainant at 65 was not objectively justified. The Respondent was ordered to reinstate the Complainant, and to discharge arrears of wages accrued from the retirement date.

The WRC considered whether a mandatory retirement age of 65 was objectively justified in Patrick O’Callaghan v Ferrero Ireland Ltd (2023).

The Complainant in this case alleged they were discriminatorily dismissed on the grounds of age following the implementation of a mandatory retirement age at the Respondent company. The Respondent sought to justify the dismissal by stating health and safety reasons were the cause of the company’s mandatory retirement age. The WRC found in the Complainant’s favour and awarded the Complainant €20,000.00 on the basis that the Respondent had not carried out an individual assessment on the proportionality of the retirement age regarding the employee in question.

These decisions highlight the need for employers to adequately justify mandatory retirement ages by establishing a legitimate aim, and a means for achieving same. Additionally, employers must engage with the specific facts which the employee in question presents.

Employers must also be wary of falling foul of the Code of Practice on Longer Working (“the Code”) when making decisions on mandatory retirement ages. This is evidenced by the case of Brendan Beirne v Rosderra Irish Meats Group[2], which further addressed the application of mandatory retirement ages, and how employers are required to deal with requests for longer working.

The Complainant, Brendan Beirne, was forced to retire from his employment at 65 due to a mandatory retirement age clause in his contract, and a collective agreement. He requested to work beyond his 65^th birthday, but the Respondent refused; without providing reasons or providing the Complainant with an opportunity to appeal the decision. In finding the Respondent’s actions to be discriminatory, the Adjudicator noted that while a mandatory retirement age can be reasonable when it is objectively justified by a legitimate aim, it is necessary for the employer to clearly communicate the grounds for refusal of an employee’s request to work longer, providing evidence of why the request is being refused. The Adjudicator awarded €30,000 to the Complainant for this failure.

This decision emphasises the importance of compliance with the Code and provides a takeaway for employers: when dealing with requests for longer working, it is paramount employers provide specific grounds for refusal and evidence to support their decision. These grounds should be communicated clearly and in writing to best insulate the employer from any subsequent action from the employee.

Mallon

The issue of mandatory retirement was pushed further into the legal spotlight in the wake of the 2024 decision of the Supreme Court in Mallon v Minster for Justice[3]. Mr. Mallon, a county sheriff (and a practising barrister) challenged the mandatory retirement age of 70 for sheriffs in Ireland. Mr. Mallon argued that the mandatory retirement age was discriminatory. The Court ultimately held that the mandatory retirement age was justified by a legitimate aim of standardising retirement ages across the public service, allowing for planning and organisational efficiency, and promoting age balance in the workforce.

The Court further rejected Mr. Mallon’s argument that an individual assessment of each sheriff’s capacity was necessary before imposing a mandatory retirement age. Instead, it held that a blanket mandatory retirement age could be justified if it was objectively and reasonably necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, even if it did not involve individual assessment.

The Supreme Court summarised the legal position in holding that a mandatory retirement age can be justified if it is objectively and reasonably necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, even if it does not involve individual assessment. The decision was subsequently reaffirmed in the recent case of Patrick Donnellan and Eircom Limited[4], where the Adjudicator relied heavily on the position taken in Mallon, referring to the Supreme Court’s finding a mandatory retirement age does not constitute unlawful age discrimination where the means of achievement are both appropriate and where proportionate in accordance with Article 6(1) of the Directive 2000/78/EC in relation differences in treatment on grounds of age.

The Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Act 2025

As initially noted, the Employment (Contractual Retirement Ages) Act 2025 (the “Act”) represents a significant development in the regulation of mandatory retirement ages in Ireland. The Act, which was signed into law on 16 December 2025, is expected to commence later this year and will allow, but not compel, employees to remain in work beyond their contractual retirement age until the employees reach the State Pensionable Age, which is currently set at 66 years.

The Act delivers a statutory provision which sets out that an employer may not enforce a contractual retirement age below the State Pension Age if the employee does not consent to this contractual retirement age.

The Act adopts a consent‑based approach. Where an employee does not agree to a contractual mandatory retirement age that falls before the pensionable age, that clause will instead be interpreted as setting the retirement age at the pensionable age, or; if the employee consents to retiring after the contractual age but before the pensionable age, at the age mutually agreed between the employer and employee.

Employers should write to employees who are approaching their contractual retirement date within 6-12 months of this date, to initiate discussions and to assist and guide the employee. Where an employee does not consent to the contractual retirement age, they must notify their employer in writing at least 3 months but less than 1 year before the employee’s contractual retirement age; or, where the notification period for termination provided in the employee’s contract is more than 3 months, not less than this period specified, or 6 months; whichever is shorter.

The Act will therefore give employees significant autonomy to either follow the contractual mandatory retirement age, continue working until they reach the State Pension Age, or, where applicable, retire at any point between the contractual retirement age and the pensionable age.

Where an employer has received a notification from the employee, they cannot enforce the contractual retirement age until they have provided a written reply, which must be provided within one month of the notification. The response must clearly identify the employer’s objectively grounded and reasonably justifiable legitimate aims for imposing a contractual retirement age.

The Act is set to significantly impact workforce participation among older employees, enhance workplace diversity, and address issues of age discrimination. It is a progressive step towards modernising Ireland’s approach to mandatory retirement age and promoting age-inclusive workplaces. Disgruntled employees will be able to bring a complaint to the WRC where their employer does not comply with its obligations under the Act, and the WRC may award compensation of up to 104 times the employee’s weekly salary, or €40,000, whichever is greater.

Given the significant changes brought with the Act, a Code of Practice is expected to follow which should provide further guidance for employers. In the meantime, employers will need to review and possibly revise their retirement age policies to ensure compliance with the new legislative requirements and may also be required to engage in a more individualised assessment when enforcing contractual retirement ages, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Mallon. Additionally, employers may need to implement measures to support older employees who choose to continue working, such as flexible working arrangements, training opportunities, and career development initiatives.

How can we help

If you have any queries or concerns, or would like to discuss the above in further detail, please feel free to contact Richard Lee, Head of Employment or Leanne Hill, Solicitor, in the Employment & Benefits Department of BHSM LLP on rlee@bhsm.ie / lhill@bhsm.ie.

This article is for general information purposes.  Legal advice must be obtained for individual circumstances.  Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this article, no liability is accepted by the author for any inaccuracies.

[1] ADJ-00045261

[2] ADJ-00027036

[3] Mallon v Minister for Justice [2024] IESC 20

[4] ADJ-00051860