The Complainant outlined that she suffers with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis ‘ME’ which can have an incredibly debilitating effect. The Complainant said that she was formally diagnosed with the condition in January 2017 and had previously been diagnosed with depression. The Complainant stated that there is a degree of cognitive impairment in the sense that her short-term memory is poor.

The Complainant, a solicitor, submitted that this was the first time she was late in filing a return to the Respondent public body. She described the online system as a “nightmare”. The Complainant stated that she was unable to sort the Digital Certificate required for the online system. She described the process as being a real headache.

In summary, the Complainant submitted that she was subjected to harassment on the phone calls and that she had been harassed and discriminated against on the grounds of her disability. The Complainant also added that the Respondent had failed to provide reasonable accommodation for her.

The respondent submitted that the complainant attributed how she was treated to the relationship with a large firm of accountants, her being a solicitor and her former registered address in a different county. The respondent submitted that all three were not to do with disability. The complainant expected the respondent to be intuitive, inquisitorial and anticipatory. It was not clear what the complainant was seeking in terms of reasonable accommodation. Relying on Cahill v Minister for Education [2017] IESC 29, the test is objective. The complainant was never refused anything, and she did not ask for anything. It would not cost anything to give the complainant more time, i.e. coming within the ambit of ‘nominal cost’.

The Respondent contended that while the online system is daunting, the Complainant did not ask for more time to submit returns. The Respondent outlined that an Access Officer is available online which comes up when searching disability on the website. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that the service provider is not required to be intuitive to, or anticipatory of, any disability a person may have.

The Adjudicating Officer concluded that because the Complainant did not request any specific form of accommodation or special treatment, the Respondent cannot be held to have failed or refused to provide special treatment of facilities. However, the Adjudicating Officer found that discriminatory treatment towards the Complainant existed. The Complainant’s disability contributed to the differential treatment and the Respondent did not show that this had no influence, nor a trivial one. Accordingly, The Respondent was ordered to pay the Complainant redress in the amount of €1,000.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2020/june/adj-00017370.html