Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Issues Guidelines on Discrimination Against Older Workers

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) has published new guidelines for employers and employees to seek to ensure that older workers, who wish to continue in employment, are not discriminated against in workplaces in Ireland. The “Guidelines on Retirement and Fixed-Term Contacts” focus on the potential for discrimination arising from the compulsory retirement of staff on reaching a particular age, as well as the offering of fixed-term contracts to persons over that compulsory retirement age.

Among other things, the guidelines consider practical issues that arise from granting fixed-term contracts to employees who are over a compulsory retirement age, and explains how these issues may be addressed by both employers and employees. In addition, they The consider the setting of compulsory retirement ages, and the dismissal of employees who reach that age. Both of these actions are subject to the requirement of “objective justification”. The guidelines explore what “objective justification” means and what the relevant test involves.

Source: Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Press Release (April 30, 2018)

Ireland: Age Action Calls for Abolition of Mandatory Retirement Age

Age Action has issued a briefing paper and called for the abolition in Ireland of mandatory retirement clauses in that every year force workers out of their because of their age. Justin Moran, Head of Advocacy and Communications at Age Action, said: “Mandatory retirement is simply age discrimination, forcing someone out of a job because they’ve reached some arbitrary age set by their employer."

The paper--"Mandatory Retirement: Age Action Briefing Paper No. 1"--sets out the legal and policy context for mandatory retirement clauses in Irish law and argues for their abolition. It explains that EU employment law forbids discrimination on the basis of age but a loophole allows Member States to treat workers differently if justified by a "legitimate aim." However, recent changes to the Irish pension system means that many victims of mandatory retirement clauses are not just losing their salaries, they’re losing out in State supports. As Justin Moran explained: “The Government raised the State Pension age from 65 to 66 and abolished the transition pension. This means a worker forced into retirement at the age of 65, the most common age chosen by employers, has no choice but to go on the dole for 12 months while waiting to receive their pension."

Justin Moran continued: “Courts have found that examples of a ‘legitimate aim’ can include forcing older workers onto the dole to make room for younger unemployed even though the evidence shows this does not lead to increased employment for younger people.

“Those countries with high rates of employment for older workers are also typically those with similar rates for young people.

“Government policy is to support longer working lives, to enable those who wish to work a little longer to do so, to value their contribution and their experience. But in practice, employers are permitted to get rid of older workers for no other reason than they turn 65."

Sources: Age Action Press Release (November 25, 2016); Irish Examiner "Age Action: End ‘ageist’ ban on working past 65" (November 25, 2016)

Hong Kong: Proposals Made to Scrap Public and Private Retirement Ages

According to a post in Time Out (Hong Kong), the Chinese University of Hong Kong’s Institute of Ageing says the government and firms should scrap their retirement age for employees. According to the reporter, Rachel Lau:

Professor Chan Kar-choi, a lecturer at CUHK’s department of social work, who specialises in gerontology, tells us: “In terms of the society at large, I think Hong Kong’s productive force is dwindling because of this population change. In order to maintain enough people to engage in the labour force, it makes sense to expand the retirement age.”

Lau writes that although Hong Kong has no compulsory retirement age, the government recently increased the retirement age of new civil servants from 60 to 65, and that, in the private sector, the retirement age remains around 60.

Dr Mak Kin-wah, chairman of the Hong Kong Society for the Aged (Sage), agrees with this perspective and says that an ageing population working past the typical retirement age could be a triple win. “It’s a win for the employer, a win for the community and a win for the individual person. The elderly are probably more patient. They’re more experienced and more educated, so they’re actually good employees. In Hong Kong, especially, where our economy is not really based on hard labour and is instead based on knowledge, this group of people can certainly contribute and pass their experiences on to the next generation of workers.”

Source: Time Out "Put out to pasture: Should Hong Kong scrap its retirement age?" (November 23, 2016)

United Kingdom: Cambridge Academics Approve Age 67 Mandatory Retirement

Cambridge University has introduced a compulsory retirement age of 67 for its academics to promote "intergenerational fairness" and enable career progression, according to press reports. Cambridge conducted the vote in response to the United Kingdom's abolition of the default retirement age, but it applies only to academic employees.

In voting for an "employer justified retirement age" (EJRA), the academics have decided that, upon reaching 67, they must either take their pension or reapply to stay at the University. Claire Churchard, writing in People Management, quotes Indi Seehra, HR director at the university as saying:

Introducing the EJRA for academics will support intergenerational fairness. It will allow our academics to progress through the promotional stages in the course of their career and help to create a balanced distribution of ages.

...

In an environment where innovation is needed, you need new people to come in to the cohort to create innovation. But you need the capacity to allow them in, and if you haven’t got people leaving then that will be a restriction on the capacity for new people.

Sources: People Management "Cambridge academics approve compulsory retirement age" (May 3, 2012); The Cambridge Student "Analysis: Should Cambridge dons be made to retire at 67?" (April 26, 2012)

Canada: Human Rights Commission Warns Against Forced Retirements during Transition Period before Ban on Mandatory Retirement Takes Effect

The Canadian Human Rights Commission is cautioning employers on the rights of aging workers. The section of the Human Rights Law that permitted federally regulated employers to impose mandatory retirement in some circumstances was repealed in December 26, 2011, but a one-year transition period was included before it would take effect. The Commission is now telling employers that that delay is "not a license to force aging workers out the door."

According to David Langtry, Acting Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, "Forcing someone to retire because of their age clearly contradicts Parliament’s intent, even if a defense in law still appears to be available." The Commission does not have evidence that this is taking place, but the Commission believes it is prudent to caution any employer that might be considering such action to think again. Even before it was repealed, he Federal Court had ruled that that section of the law violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that this breach is not a justifiable limitation of an individual’s right to equality.

For commentary on whether employers are focusing on, or thinking of acting on, this delay, see "Legal loophole allows ageism at work to go unpunished" and "Retirement 'loophole' overblown", both in the Vancouver Sun.

Source: Canadian Human Rights Commission News Release (March 26, 2012)

United Kingdom: London Employers Unprepared for Abolition of Mandatory Retirement

A survey conducted by the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI) and Penningtons Solicitors LLP shows that 57% of London employers are not prepared for and 26% do not know about the 2011 abolition of the default retirement age (DRA). According to "Tackling the age-old problem of retirement, The Penningtons/LCCI survey of London employers on the changes to the default retirement age (DRA)," less than half--43%--of the employers consider themselves to be either quite well or very well prepared.

Other findings of the survey show that 78% think that workers should be retained on their ability rather than their age, 68% agree that the UK's employment legal framework needs to be modernized, 56% are concerned that older employees may refuse to retire even when they cannot perform their job effectively, and 54% are concerned about the lack of clarity about how to legitimately retire employees.

The report also includes a six-point plan to help employers minimize the risks of being on the wrong end of employment-related legal claims. Included in the plan are five best practice points together with advice on how to achieve a fair dismissal on capability grounds: (1) promoting more positive procedural terminology, (2) educating managers to respond to older workers' needs, (3) turning the annual appraisal system into a 365 day rolling program, (4) encouraging mentoring roles for older workers, and (5) building a workplace culture of transparency and clear communication.

Source: Penningtons Solicitors LLP News Release (May 26, 2011)

United Kingdom: Government Opens Process for Deleting Default Retirement Age by 2011

The United Kingdom's Coalition Government has announced plans for the elimination of the current age 65 default retirement age following a six month transition phase-out from April 2011. Employment Relations Minister Edward Davey is calling on employers, unions and other groups to have their say on a proposal that could allow many people the choice to work beyond the age of 65.



The government's proposal would still make it possible for individual employers to operate a compulsory retirement age, provided that they can objectively justify it. Examples could include air traffic controllers and police officers. In addition, in its consultation, the government asks whether it could provide additional support for individuals and employers in managing without the DRA or statutory retirement procedure. This includes the possibility of future guidance or a more formal code of practice on handling retirement discussions. Views are also being sought on whether removal of the DRA could have unintended consequences for insured benefits and employee share plans.

Click here for a full copy of the consultation.

Sources: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Press Release (July 29, 2010); Personnel Today "Default retirement age: Employment relations minister Ed Davey writes exclusively for Personnel Today" (July 29, 2010)

Reactions: The Age and Employment Network News Release (July 29, 2010); Daily Telegraph "Scrapping retirement age opens 'Pandora's box’ of tribunal claims" (July 30, 2010)

Europe: Worker Survey Shows Support for Early Retirement, Oppostion to Raised Retirement Ages

Aon Consulting has released survey results showing that 29% of European workers would prefer their government not to raise the national retirement age, and would be happy to have less income in retirement. AS part of Aon Consulting's European Employee Benefits Benchmark, 7,279 workers were surveyed in Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

According to the Benchmark, 46% of Irish workers--the most of any European nation surveyed--report they never really expected to retire at 65 and expected to be working longer than their parents. This is closely followed by the British and Danish (44%) and the Dutch (41%). On the other hand, workers in other countries, including Germany, Spain, Switzerland and Belgium, showed a much lower tolerance towards working longer, with the Spanish being the most reluctant to retire later: just 18% say they have accepted this position.

The German workers are the most pragmatic, with 49% saying they will take advantage of financial products on the open market, such as annuities, at their own expense in order to be able to retire at the age they had originally planned.

Oliver Rowlands, head of retirement, EMEA, at Aon Consulting commented:

European employers should be aware that older workers bring a wealth of experience and may want to adopt a strategy for accommodating part-time working or job-sharing, for example.

But employers need to do more than this if they are going to grapple with an ageing workforce. Health and wellness initiatives such as employee assistance lines (a service for employees offering free counseling and professional advisory services), flexible benefits, occupational health initiatives and flexible working days, are all ways of helping to ensure the health and welfare of an ageing staff.

Source: AON Consulting News Release (April 26, 2010)

United Kingdom: Survey Finds Increase in Forced Retirements at Age 65

A survey conducted by DNS/BMRB for Age Concern and Help the Aged suggests that the number of people aged 65-plus forced to retire during 2009 increased to more than 100‚000, a figure four times higher than the number the charity feared would be hit when the Default Retirement Age was introduced in 2006. According to the poll of people aged 60 to 70, 24% knew a friend or colleague who had been made to retire at or after 65.

Michelle Mitchell, a director at Age Concern and Help the Aged, said: “Our survey clearly shows the use of forced retirement has spiralled out of control, offering some employers a low-cost shortcut to shed jobs during the recession."

Source: AgeUK News Release (February 25, 2010)

Cambodia: Enforcing Mandatory Retirement to Open Up Jobs for Younger Workers

According to an article in the Phnom Penh Post by Kay Kimsong, Hun Sen issued a directive on January 12 calling for the retirement of all male officials over the age of 60 and all female officials over the age of 55, in accordance with laws that have been on the books in some form since 1994. According to supporters, enforcement of the mandatory retirement rules will lead to new ideas and reduce civil servant corruption.

Thus, for example, Rong Chhun, president of the Cambodian Independent Teachers Association, said more opportunities for corruption materialise the longer employees stay in the same job. Sieng Rithy, chief of the education and advocacy unit for the Khmer Youth Association, said enforcement of the directive would enable a new generation of employees to shape policies.

Source: The Phnom Penh Post "Young workers stand to gain from rule on retirement age" (February 3, 2009)

Advocate General Opinion Supports U.K.'s Mandatory Retirement Law at European Court of Justice

Jan Marzak, the Advocate-General for the European Court of Justice, has issued an opinion recommending that the Court uphold the United Kingdom's law taht bans discrimination on the ground of age but excludes pensioners, who can be dismissed at 65 without redundancy payments, or at the employer's mandatory retirement age if it is above 65. According to Marzak:

A rule such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits employers to dismiss employees aged 65 or over if the reason for dismissal is retirement, can in principle be justified under Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 if that rule is objectively and reasonably justified in the context of national law by a legitimate aim relating to employment policy and the labour market and it is not apparent that the means put in place to achieve that aim of public interest are inappropriate and unnecessary for the purpose.

According to Gordon Lishman, director general of Age Concern, one of whose member organizations--Heyday--brought the case to set aside the law, "This is a set back, but it is not a disaster." While Age Concern would have preferred to have the Advocate General’s support, his "opinion confirms that the EU Directive requires age discrimination to be justified. It’s now up to the UK government to prove to the High Court that their social and employment policies are important enough to justify kicking people out of work at 65."

Sources: The Times "Setback in battle against compulsory retirement age" (September 24, 2008); Personnel Today "Heyday age discrimination ruling: what the employment lawyers and experts say" (September 23, 2008); Age Concern Press Release (September 23, 2008); Employers Forum on Age Press Release (September 23, 2008)

United Kingdom: DWP Study Shows Retirees ' Unease at Retirement

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) reports that less than half of Britons chose the word “happy” to describe how they felt on the first day of retirement: "evidence the traditional sudden stop approach no longer works for many people." According to the research conducted by Ipsos MORI, while 48% were happy and 31% relaxed, almost one in ten reported being sad (11%), anxious (8%), or lost (8%).

Pensions Minister Mike O’Brien commented:

The idea that one day you work and the next you stop can be a shock to the system. These findings challenge the traditional "one size fits all" approach to retirement. Many of today’s older workers are rejecting the cliff edge between work and retirement in favour of a gradual step down. And employers should help them to do this.

Gordon Lishman, Director General of Age Concern, responded in decrying the "ultimate 'cliff edge'" of the mandatory retirement age of 65 and said The "government must abolish this discriminatory barrier if it is serious in wanting to help older people to continue working." Charles Cotton, Reward Adviser at the CIPD, was reported as responding: "Both our own research and the report published today from the DWP show that people are increasingly eager to work past the default retirement age, for social, personal as well as financial reasons."

Sources: Department for Work and Pensions Press Release (April 8, 2008); Fair Investment Company "Pension and other worries tarnish retirement" (April 8, 2008); Age Concern Response (April 8, 2008); TrainingZone.com "New research strengthens case for older workers" (April 8, 2008)

Law Firms Confront Aging Workorce in Their Own Profession

Elizabeth Goldberg writes in American Lawyser that as baby boomers hit their 60s, U.S. law firms are trying to keep the most experienced and talented ones from walking out the door. She tells older lawyers that are healthy and productive and eager to keep working, that law firms want them and are willing to help out with work/life balance, setting one's own schedule, and getting flexibility. She cites one study showing that boomers now constitute 70% of law firm partners. "Boomers will not only challenge traditional notions of when partners retire, but also how they do so."

Already, retirement age is a hot topic in law firms, especially as mandatory retirement policies have increasingly come under attack. In January the New York State Bar Association issued a report opposing mandatory retirement on the grounds that it is archaic and unfair. In August the American Bar Association adopted the New York Bar report and recommended that all firms end forced retirement. And in October, Sidley Austin settled a long-standing age discrimination case with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that included a promise to revoke the firm's mandatory retirement policy.

According to an American Lawyer survey of the top 200 firms, in 69% of them, 20-39% of the equity partners are age 50 or older, and at 23% of firms, more than 40% of the partnership is 50 or older. Furthermore, 64% of the firmsd have a mandatory retirement age, ranging mostly from 65 to 70.

Source: American Lawyer "Law Firms Face Gray Area as Boomers Age" (December 10, 2007)

United Kingdom: European Court Decision Seen as Supporting Mandatory Retirement Law

A number of United Kingdom lawyers, reacting to the European Court of Justice decision upholding Spain's manatatory retirement law, believe the decision suggests that a challenge to the UK law will also fail. Thus, for example, a story in Personnel Today quotes Rachel Dineley, employment partner at law firm Beachcroft, as saying:

"While Heyday may persist with its challenge regardless of this development, employers can take comfort from what is clearly a sound and sensible view.

"Conversely, employees who had contemplated challenging their employer's decision to require them to retire on reaching age 65 may reluctantly accept the decision, and recognise that any challenge through the Employment Tribunal is very probably futile."

Similarly, in an article for THe Times, Michael Herman quotes James Baker, a solicitor at Macfarlanes, as saying: “The court has clearly accepted that mandatory retirement ages are discriminatory but that they can be justified as in this case.”

However, in a story in Clickdocs, quotes Juliet Carp, an employment solicitor with Speechly Bircham LLP, as saying:

"At first sight, the ECJ's decision seems likely to disappoint older workers - and delight many employers.

"Although the judges in Palacios made it clear that a wide discretion is offered to member states, it is still possible that the ECJ might not accept the British policy objectives as a legitimate excuse for age discrimination."

In addition, Gordon Lishman, Director General at Age Concern, has announced that, while disappointed that the the Palacios case did not succeed, Age Concern still believes "it is discriminatory for an individual to be made to retire on the grounds of their age and against their will," and that the Court decision will not set back the legal case that Heyday, supported by Age Concern, is bringing to the Court. "There are significant distinctions between the Heyday case and the case of Felix Palacios. The legal advice we are hearing is that Heyday should forge ahead with its case undeterred."

Sources: Personnel Today "European Court of Justice signals UK's mandatory retirement age will survive Heyday challenge" (October 16, 2007); The Times "EU ruling a blow to workers over 65" (October 17, 2007); Clickdocs "Compulsory retirement not prohibited, says ECJ" (October 18, 2007); Age Concern News Release (October 17, 2007)

European Court of Justice Upholds Mandatory Retirement Legislation

In the case of Palacios v Cortefiel Servicios SA, the European Court of Justice has held that the European Union's Equal Treatment Framework Directive does not prohibit member states from introducing mandatory retirement ages. Following an earlier ruling by an Advocate-General of the ECJ, the Court ruled on a complaint brought by Félix Palacios de la Villa against Cortefiel Servicios SA, in which Mr Palacios claims that his dismissal on the ground that he had attained the compulsory retirement age laid down in a collective agreement was unlawful and that a provision in Spain's discrimination laws which effectively allowed employers to force staff to retire at 65 was incompatible with European law.

In its decision, the Court first stated that national legislation fixing an age for compulsory retirement establishes rules relating to "employment and working conditions, including dismissals and pay" within the meaning of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000--establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation--and, therefore falls within its scope. Thus, since such legislation directly imposes less favorable treatment for workers who have reached that age as compared with all other persons in the labor force, it cannot pass muster unless there is justification for that difference in treatment.

Turning to the justification in the case of the Spanish legislation, the Court found that it lay in a national policy aiming to promote better access to employment by means of better distribution of work between the generations, even though the legislation did not formally refer to that aim. Furthermore, the court found that the legitimacy of such an aim could not reasonably be called into question, since the promotion of a high level of employment constitutes one of the ends pursued both by the European Union and the European Community.

The Court stopped short of authorizing any such legislation. While member states and enjoy broad discretion in their choice, the national measures may not go beyond what is "appropriate and necessary" to achieve the aim concerned. Thus, the Court found it not unreasonable for a member state to take the view that compulsory retirement, because the worker has reached the age-limit provided for, may be appropriate and necessary in order to achieve a legitimate aim in the context of national employment policy consisting in promoting full employment by facilitating access to the labour market. Furthermore, the Spanish legislation was not based only on a specific age, but also took account of the fact that the persons concerned were entitled to financial compensation by way of a retirement pension at the end of their working life, the level of which cannot be regarded as unreasonable.

Source: European Court of Justice News Release (October 16, 2007)

Ireland: Report Calls for Abolition of Mandatory Retirement

A call for an end to mandatory retirement was one of the key recommendations of the Senior Select Retain & Retrain partnership as part of its final report--"More than just a Number, Older workers in Ireland." “The impact which compulsory retirement has on people cannot be underestimated,” Age Action chief executive Robin Webster said that “[c]ompulsory retirement ages, whether in the public service or not, should be removed. It would not only give workers who wish to continue working the option to do so, but would also enable employers retain some of their most experienced and valuable staff.”

The partnership consists of Age Action, FAS, ICTU, PARTAS and Contact Recruitment, and was funded by the EU Equal Community Initiative. Other recommendations of the final report include:

• Those who are made redundant or leave the workforce should be provided with the information they need to help them make this transition;
• In facilitating diversity in the workplace, it is essential that in-company age awareness training become a routine part of good HR practice, also leading to an improvement in inter-generational communications within companies;
• Older workers need to be assisted in knowing how to sell their experiences and validate their competencies, regardless of formal qualifications;
• employers need to examine work practices and make flexible work arrangements available, inclduing part-time work;
• older workers should benefit equally from access to training and courses should be more geared towards their personal and professional development;
• there is a need for a one-stop shop for employment services for older people.

According to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade & Employment, the recommendations bear serious consideration by policy-makers, practitioners and decision-makers: "Dissemination of the findings of the project’s work and of the lessons learned will be invaluable both in the policy making process and in generating public awareness generally of the issues involved."

Sources: Age Action Ireland "Time has come to abolish the mandatory retirement age" (October 4, 2007); The Irish Times "Call for end to mandatory retirement age" (October 4, 2007); Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment Address by Minister Michael Martin at the “Experience has a Future” Conference (October 4, 2007)

Additional Resources: Senior Select Retain and Retrain "Older Workers & Employment Agencies in Ireland" (September 2007)

United Kingdom: Extensive Research Study Highlights Employers' Approach to Older Workers

A qualitative study looking at how United Kingdom employers are responding to an ageing workforce carried out by the Centre for Research into the Older Workforce (CROW) and published by the Department of Work and Pensions suggests that most employers say they have positive attitudes to older workers, although they are more reluctant to recruit the over-50s and training seems to tail off for this group. Many employers claim to prefer older workers to younger ones, because of their attitudes to work and their experience. Small firms were particularly likely to keep older people on after State Pension Age.

The study--"Employer Responses to an Ageing Workforce"--was authored by Professor Stephen McNair, Director of CROW, Matt Flynn and Nina Dutton and is based on in-depth interviews with either a senior human resource (HR) manager or a general manager at one of 70 firms, across nine occupational sectors, with a wide geographical spread. According to the summary introduction to this 188-page report:

This study has found that awareness of the Age Regulations is high among employers and that, in general, most are sympathetic to avoiding age discrimination in the workplace, although many do not make the connection between this and business needs, partly perhaps because they are unaware of long term demographic trends. Attitudes towards 'older' workers were generally positive, while young people were viewed more negatively and rarely seen as victims of age discrimination. There was a good deal of change in HR practices generally, but rarely as a sole result of the Regulations. Positive practices on retention of existing workers were much more common than active policies on recruitment. Employers were most likely to be anxious about the implementation of the new provisions on retirement, and the management challenges which this might present. In this area defensive responses appeared sometimes to be having the opposite effect to that intended by Government. The attempt to minimise risk and workloads for managers was a common theme. Within the limitations of the sample interviewed, there was no evidence of regional variation in employer behaviour.

Source: Department for Work and Pensions Research Report No 455--"Employer responses to an ageing workforce: a qualitative study" (September 27, 2007)

Armenia: Dismissal of Older Lab Workers Raises Concerns

Yerevan State University's decision to dismiss 65 laboratory workers age 65 or older who had spent years as assistants in the university’s chemistry, biology, and physics labs has raised concerns, according to an article by Sara Khojoyan. While national labor law is on the university rector’s side, since an employer has the right to cancel contracts with workers based on the national retirement age--61 for women and 65 for men, the University trade union president suggests that the workers, who are protesting their dismissal, are raising moral issues that the law does not address.

Source: Transitions Online "Out With the Old" (August 6, 2007)

India: Older Workers Beng Ignored in Economic Boon? A Commentary

Ravi Srinivasan, writing in the Hindustan Times, suggests that "India’s absurdly low retirement age of 58" means that by 2010, one-fifth of India’s current workforce ("from shop-floor workers to top managers") will be out of the workforce. Even though India has had a demographic drawing card--its vast supply of young workers entering the workforce, Srinivasan reports on recent surveys that show that several industries in India are already facing moderate to severe talent shortage.

“Opening the doors to older workers is a major benefit…it will help organisations retain knowledge and experience, widen the recruitment base and could lead to more customers and greater profits,” commented Soumen Basu, executive chairman, Manpower India.

Thus, "looking beyond those grey hairs makes sound business sense." Otherwise, in a few years, India may have found itself "untutored and fertile" over "educated and aging."

Source: Hindustan Times "India’s overlooked ‘grey market’ workforce" (July 12, 2007)

Expert Knowledge May Offset the Impact of Old Age in Some Occupations

According to a study published in the February 27, 2007, issue of Neurology®, older pilots performed better over time than younger pilots on flight simulator tests. The results of a three-year longitudinal study by Joy L. Taylor, PhD, Quinn Kennedy, PhD, Art Noda, MS and Jerome A. Yesavage, MD were published in "Pilot age and expertise predict flight simulator performance". Among other things, the authors found that "while older pilots initially performed worse than younger pilots, older pilots showed less of a decline in overall flight summary scores than younger pilots, and over time their traffic avoidance performances improved more than that of younger pilots."

“These findings show the advantageous effect of prior experience and specialized expertise on older adults’ skilled cognitive performances,” said study author Joy L. Taylor, PhD, with the Stanford/VA Aging Clinical Research Center in Palo Alto, California. “Our discovery has broader implications beyond aviation to the general issue of aging in the workplace and the objective assessment of competency in older workers.”

In the same issue, Joseph I. Sirven and Daniel G. Morrow have an editorial--"Fly the graying skies: A question of competency vs age" suggesting that the study had implications "well beyond aviation," noting the rapid aging of the population means increasing numbers of older workers in critical occupations. As quoted in The San Francisco Chronicle:

"It is time to reconsider fixed age limits for the workplace and consider transitioning to competency-based evaluations of performance," said the editorial authors, Dr. Joseph L. Sirven of the Mayo Clinic and Daniel G. Morrow of the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. "Better simulation techniques need to be developed not only in aviation, but also in medicine and other careers where public safety is at risk.

Source: American Academy of Neurology Press Release (February 26, 2007)

Other Sources: The San Francisco Chronicle "Experience tops youth in study on aging pilots" (February 27, 2007); HealthCentral.com "Pilot Study Questions Wisdom of Mandatory Retirement" (February 28, 2007)