This case involved an allegation by the complainant that she was treated less favourably and dismissed on the grounds of disability. She also claimed that she had been victimised by M.K. Human Resources Limited (the Agency) for previously referring a complaint. The complainant had been on long-term placement with DHL since December 2010 before going on sick leave on the 5th February 2013. She was certified as fit to return to work from the 3rd June 2013 but was not facilitated with a placement in DHL again.

Both respondents claimed that this was due to a reduced demand for agency workers at the time, and that the complainant was not dismissed by the Agency until her resignation in January 2016. She claimed that the fact that she was required to produce 'unusual and specific medical certificates' in advance of being permitted to resume work following her sick leave was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. She also claimed that other employees of the Agency, who had been placed at DHL when she was on sick leave, still continued to work there long after she had returned from sick leave. She submitted that she had been effectively dismissed in June 2013 by the failure of the Agency to reassign her to DHL, or any other employer.

DHL submitted that it would not be their practice to specifically request a particular employee to be assigned to them, nor had they the power to replace an existing agency worker in order to accommodate the complainant's return in June 2013. The Agency submitted that the complainant had in fact resigned verbally on the 4th February 2013 but they confirmed that no P45 had been issued to the complainant. They also submitted that there was no vacancy in DHL in June 2013, but that they eventually assigned the complainant to another company in April 2014.

The Court held that the complaint against DHL was not well founded, particularly given the fact they unequivocally indicated their willingness to take the complainant back. However, the Court found that the Agency's position was simply not credible. On one hand the Agency claimed that she had terminated her relationship with them in February 2013 but then required that she produce written confirmation from her doctors that there was no connection between her working conditions in DHL and her illness. Accordingly, the Court found that the complainant had made a prima facie case of discrimination on the disability ground, against the agency, which they had failed to rebut. She was awarded the sum of €20,000 for the effects of the discrimination suffered but her claim of victimisation failed.
http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2017/July/EDA1721.html