We are Employment Law specialists.
This means that when you come to us, you get advice
from experts in Employment Law (and in fact Equality law), not general practitioners who may not be up to speed
with the complexities of this fast-changing area of law.
We can advise you as to your rights when you are reaching retirement age and how best to ensure that your employer respects your employment rights. If you are in the unfortunate position that your employer has treated you unfairly, we act for many clients in the exact same position as you. We will ensure that you get what you deserve.
We have proven success negotiating the prompt settlement of claims and we ensure your pay-out meets or exceeds equivalent compensation claims. We provide guidance and support so you understand the claims process, and we act in an open and transparent manner so you keep control of your claim.
You must move quickly as there is a six-month time limit on taking a claim, and no one wants to see an unlawful employer get away with one.
Call us now on 1890 88 90 90 for a free no-obligation consultation or to arrange an appointment with us to review your case. Don’t put up with this type of treatment. Make sure your employer knows you won’t tolerate it. We’ll hold the megaphone, you make your voice heard.
Whether you are seeking general advice regarding discrimination at work when you are expecting a child or if you are concerned that your rights may have been infringed, it is important to take action quickly.
Such differences of treatment may include, among others:
The Court of Justice of the European Union has considered the standard of proof placed on a Respondent when attempting to show that a difference in treatment is objectively justified in the pursuit of a legitimate aim. The Court in the case of R (on the application of the Incorporated Trustees of the National Council on Ageing) v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform C-388/07 stated:
However, it is important to note that the latter provision is addressed to the Member States and imposes on them, notwithstanding their broad discretion in matters of social policy, the burden of establishing to a high standard of proof the legitimacy of the aim pursued.
The case of Furlong v. Applus Car Testing Service Ltd DEC-E2013-084, discussed above, provides authority for the proposition that an Employer must produce detailed evidence to support any assertion that a difference in treatment on the basis of age in the form of a compulsory retirement policy has a legitimate aim. Similarly, in the O’Mahony decision discussed above, the Equality Tribunal rejected the Employer’s assertion that a compulsory retirement policy was justified by the legitimate aim of health and safety where they failed to produce any actual evidence that retiring employees at the age of 65 improved health and safety. A mere assertion to that affect is insufficient to discharge the burden of proof placed on an Employer to avail of the justification for a difference in treatment and discharge the presumption of unlawful discrimination.