Employer failed to properly assess reasonable disability accommodations for an employee with Alzheimer’s disease and awarded €25,000 compensation.

The Complainant’s partner stated that he had worked for the Respondent since 2005 and had developed Alzheimer’s disease. She said medical specialists and occupational health had recommended fixed shifts, written instructions, memory aids and workplace supports. Although fixed hours were introduced, she maintained that other recommended accommodations had not been implemented. She said his role had changed from Line Manager to Customer Assistant without agreement and that management had failed to contact a support organisation or investigate assistance. She contended that a revised stocking system had increased his difficulties. In June 2025, management had required urgent medical confirmation of fitness, placed him on sick leave and later ceased payment under the sick pay scheme. She argued that the Respondent had delayed obtaining medical evidence, had treated him harshly because of his disability, had failed to provide reasonable accommodation and had unlawfully withheld wages while his medical position remained under review.

The Respondent denied discrimination, harassment and unlawful deductions. Their witnesses stated that management had supported the Complainant by meeting him at the clocking area, assigning familiar aisles, breaking down stock, reducing physical demands and providing fixed daily shifts. They said his performance and ability to retain instructions had deteriorated, that he had occasionally wandered from tasks, left stock creating hazards, attended when not rostered and telephoned to confirm shifts. Management maintained that written planograms had not been practical because of limited shelf space and changing layouts, while the revised stocking method had been intended to simplify his work. The Store Manager said medical clarification had been required because of safety concerns and conflicting reports. Paid sick leave had been provided, after which the contractual sick pay entitlement had expired. The Respondent also argued that the Complainant’s partner had withheld a third medical opinion concluding that he was unfit for work.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the Complainant had established a prima facie case because his disability, the Respondent’s knowledge and the occupational health recommendations had been proven. However, the demotion complaint had been submitted outside the time limit and had been weakened by a signed contract. The harassment complaint had failed because the medical request, although harsh, had not been shown to constitute disability-related unwanted conduct. The Adjudicator accepted that managers had acted in good faith, but found that the accommodation process had lacked coordination, expertise and assessment. The Respondent had not investigated written supports, workplace assistance, external organisations, public funding or other measures. Its approach had remained ad hoc and had placed excessive responsibility on the Complainant’s partner. The reasonable accommodation complaint succeeded, compensation of €25,000 awarded and a policy review directed. The Payment of Wages complaint failed under the agreed sick pay scheme.

1. Undertake a structured and individualised assessment after receiving medical advice identifying a disability and recommended accommodations. Management should appoint a responsible decision-maker, consult directly with the employee and representatives, record each recommendation, assess its practicality and explain any refusal by reference to evidence, operational requirements and proportionality.
2. Employers should investigate every reasonable support before concluding that an accommodation was impractical. That process includes occupational-health clarification, ergonomic or task assessments, written prompts, altered duties, buddy arrangements, disability organisations, grants and public funding.

3. Where medical opinions conflicts, employers should manage the process promptly, transparently and collaboratively. Requests for reports should allow realistic timescales, and responsibility for obtaining medical evidence not shift unfairly to the employee or family. Sick leave and sick pay procedures considered alongside equality obligations, rather than applied mechanically. 
   

The full case can be found here.