The complainant suffered from a rare condition known as Cataplexy rendering him liable to lose control of his body in situations of heightened emotion, stress or tiredness. He worked as one of three security guards at the Cappagh Hospital site. His medical advisors suggested that he either be placed on all day shifts or all night shifts. The respondent made two separate proposals to the complainant that would have allowed him to work days only or nights only, both resulting in a 33% reduction in his total working hours. This reduction of his working hours was less favourable treatment according to the complainant.

The Court accepted that the respondent was unwilling to amend the existing working hours of the other two security workers on the site and found that the revised rosters did not amount to discriminatory treatment. However, the Court was more concerned with the employer’s assertion that it had no obligation to the complainant under section 16 of the Acts and that it had gone over and above its legal obligations to facilitate the complainant’s return to work.

The Court considered sections 16(3) and 16(4), the definition of employer, Directive 2000/78/EC, the Marleasing (C106/89) and Ring (C335/11, C337/11) CJEU cases, the latter considering the UN Charter on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Ultimately the Court did not accept the submission that the respondent was not required to make reasonable accommodation pursuant to section 16 and found that its offers of different hours and relocation come squarely within the ambit of reasonable accommodation and appropriate measures as envisaged by section 16.

However, the Court found that the complainant was not discriminated against by the offer of different hours and that the respondent had discharged its duty in accordance with section 16.

Why is this case of interest?

Finally, this case appears to clarify the requirement to provide reasonable accommodation as a stand-alone cause of action. This was not the case prior to the 2004 amendments of the Acts and has never been explicitly addressed since despite obiter comments in previous Court Determinations.

The Court found it was acceptable, following consideration, not to amend the working hours of other workers when considering reasonable accommodation – not to be confused with the consideration of the redistribution of tasks mentioned in the recent Nano Nagle, [2015]IEHC 785, High Court Decision.