O'Neill v Fairview Motors Ltd [2012]

Posted In: Case Law
  • Case Reference
  • Legal Body
    Other Tribunals & Courts (OTAC)
  • Type of Claim / Jurisdiction
Issues covered: Age discriminatory conditions of employment; discriminatory dismissal; retirement; objective justification; purposive interpretation

Age Discrimination; Retirement; Objective Justification In this case the claimant was an employee employed by the respondent as a motor mechanic from November 1989 until the end of July 2008. The claimant argued that his employer did not allow him to avail of the same training opportunities as the other younger employees as he was due to retire. The claimant argued that this constituted less favourable treatment and age discrimination. The respondent counter argued that the decision to end the contract of employment was due to 65 being the compulsory age of retirement. The fact that the respondent did not have an established company policy

Already a subscriber?

Click here to login and access the full article.

Don't miss out, register today!

Are you fully aware of the benefits of Legal-Island's Employment Law Update Service? We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact on your business.

Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe

24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues

Ensure your organisation’s policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law

Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team at Worthingtons Solicitors

Already a subscriber, now or Register

This article is correct at 14/09/2012

The information in this article is provided as part of Legal-Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article.