A Sales Assistant was awarded €6,500 after being found to have been discriminatorily dismissed during probation due to her disability, with the employer failing to consider reasonable accommodation.

The Complainant stated that she was employed as a sales assistant from August 2024. She asserted that she had a longstanding heart condition and had disclosed this disability during her interview, explaining that she would require occasional medical appointments. She stated that her manager assured her this would not present any difficulty. Following Covid-19 in September 2024, she experienced a series of serious infections and was certified unfit for work on several occasions in September and January. She maintained that these illnesses were linked to her weakened immune system arising from her heart condition. The Complainant stated that she was dismissed during probation because of her sick leave and that a manager expressly stated that the company could not employ someone who was frequently absent. She argued that the Respondent failed to provide reasonable accommodation, refused her request to extend probation, and treated her unfairly and discriminatorily on the grounds of disability.

The Respondent contended that the Complainant was dismissed solely due to an unacceptable level of absence during her probationary period and not because of any disability. It relied on the terms of the contract, which permitted termination during probation on one week’s notice and excluded the disciplinary procedure during that period. The Respondent maintained that the Complainant’s medical certificates referred only to temporary illnesses and did not establish a disability. It argued that the Complainant did not consistently assert that her absences were related to a disability and did not request reasonable accommodation supported by medical evidence. The Respondent submitted that temporary illnesses do not constitute a disability under the Employment Equality Acts and that the Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. It further argued that the decision to terminate employment was a proportionate and lawful response to excessive absence during probation.

The Adjudicating Officer found that the Complainant had established the existence of a disability within the meaning of the Employment Equality Acts and that the Respondent had been put on notice of that disability. The Adjudicator accepted the Complainant’s evidence that her medical condition made her more susceptible to infection and that her absences were linked to that condition. It was held that the Respondent failed to conduct an adequate assessment of the Complainant’s capacity to work or to consider reasonable accommodation, contrary to established Labour Court principles. The Adjudicator concluded that the Respondent did not engage in the required two-stage enquiry and failed to explore proportionate alternatives such as probation extension. A causal link between the disability and the dismissal was established, giving rise to a prima facie case of discrimination which the Respondent failed to rebut. Accordingly, the Adjudicator found that the Complainant had been discriminatorily dismissed and awarded compensation and corrective measures. €6500 was awarded.

Employers should:                

• Recognise that disability under equality legislation is interpreted broadly and may include conditions that fluctuate or interact with temporary illnesses. Where an employee discloses a medical condition or potential disability, employers must treat this as a trigger for further enquiry rather than as incidental information. Decisions taken during probation do not displace statutory equality obligations.

• Obtain relevant medical information, consult with the employee, and assess whether reasonable accommodation is feasible. This process should be documented carefully and should include consideration of adjustments such as modified duties, flexible scheduling, or probation extension. A failure to engage in this may itself constitute discrimination.

• Ensure that managers are trained in equality law and in handling health-related issues sensitively and lawfully. Probationary status does not justify bypassing equality obligations; rather, it requires even greater caution where disability issues arise.

The full case can be found here.