Major age discrimination payout for nurse forced to retire at 66
NEW YORK: A ruling that a nursing home must pay compensation to a senior staff nurse for discriminating against her when forcing her to retire at the age of 66 “serves as a significant warning to employers” in relation to age-related discrimination, an employment lawyer has said.
Richard Grogan was commenting after the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ordered the payout. Aideen Collard, the WRC adjudicator, said the award was “proportionate” in circumstances where the nursing home made no effort to comply with the Employment Equality Acts.
Collard said that the senior staff nurse “suffered stress and indignity” along with 11 months’ loss of earnings and denial of statutory redundancy and an ex-gratia payment. In evidence, the nurse put the loss of earnings over the 11 months at around €64,713, along with a statutory redundancy of approximately €7,500 and an ex-gratia payment of around €3,000.
Collard stated that from July 27, 2018, when the senior nurse was informed by letter by her employer that she would retire compulsorily on October 31, 2018 upon reaching her 65th birthday, “her employment was tainted with illegality and discrimination on the ground of age”.
The nursing home granted the senior nurse a one-year extension but Collard stated that when the senior nurse requested a further extension in writing, there was no meaningful engagement by the nursing home.
In her letter, the senior nurse manager wrote: “I am fit and able to work and have never been out on sick leave in the last five years, including in the last year.”
Collard said she fully accepted the nurse’s evidence that there was ample work available, particularly as the nursing home was recruiting agency and non-European Economic Area staff at the time of her dismissal. With an exemplary work record, the nurse was entirely capable of undertaking the work required, the adjudicator added.
The nurse alleged that the nursing home had acted unlawfully and in breach of the Employment Equality Acts on the ground of age including refusing to engage meaningfully with her in relation to her request to remain in employment for an additional year.
The nurse also claimed that the nursing home failed to show that its refusal to allow her to remain in employment corresponded to a real need and legitimate objective and was an appropriate or necessary means to achieve that objective.
The nurse stated that the decision not to renew her fixed-term contract amounted to discriminatory dismissal. She said that but for her age she would have remained in employment with the nursing home until it ceased trading.
The nursing home is subject to a High Court winding-up order and the appointed liquidator attended the WRC hearing in its place. However, no evidence was proffered in rebuttal of the senior nurse’s complaint.
Commenting on the case, Dublin-based solicitor, Richard Grogan, a Dublin-based solicitor, said the “substantial” award served as a significant warning to employers of the need to comply with employment equality legislation concerning age discrimination.
He said: “The days of someone who has got to 65 and is going to retire have well and truly ceased. The 65 age was historically picked because that was the old age pension age and there was no other reason.”
Grogan, who was not involved in the case, said that the nurse will receive the €85,000 despite the nursing home company being in liquidation.
“This lady is guaranteed payment of the award through the EU Insolvency Directive and will be paid from the insolvency fund,” he said.