The case of Nadezda Solomonova v Milne Foods Limited (ADJ-00023754) looks at the obligations on an employer to provide reasonable accommodation where an employee has informed them of a disability.

The Complainant in this case commenced employment with the Respondent in April 2007 and worked as a general operative on a vegetable production line, on minimum wage.

Complainant's Case ⚓︎

The Complainant began to experience severe reaction when processing onions on the production line. The Complainant attended with her GP, who wrote to the Respondent asking if it is possible for her to avoid working with onions noting she had "a severe reaction to working with onions – eyes swollen and streaming and with difficulty breathing". The Complainant said that she had no reaction to preparing other types of vegetables, but the Respondent refused to allow her to work in other area and insisted that she work on the onion line at least once per week.

On 18 January 2019, she informed management that she could not continue to work on the onion line due to her adverse reaction. The Complainant became extremely unwell as she had been processing onions for several hours. The Complainant was called to a disciplinary hearing on 31 January 2019 and on 7 February 2019, the Complainant's employment was terminated. The Complainant appealed the decision but this was not upheld.

In her claim before the WRC, the Complainant submitted that her reaction to onions amounted to a disability which required reasonable accommodation. The Complainant argued that the Respondent should have taken her off the onion line and allocated her to another area.

Respondants Case  ⚓︎

In its defence, the Respondent explained that the Complainant worked on the carrot and onion processing and said that most employees experienced the effects of working with raw onions, resulting in this processing line being the least popular.

The Respondent said that following notification of the Complainant's severe reaction in 2014, she had indicated that she preferred to work with carrots and turnips. The Respondent changed its staff rota following this, which resulted in staff each spending only one day per week on the onion line. The Respondent claimed this was reasonable accommodation and it appeared to work until the Complainant raised further complaints in 2016, after she refused to prepare onions when requested to do so by her supervisor.

The Respondent referred the Complainant to the company's GP and the HR managers said that if the GP confirmed that the Complainant had an allergy to onions, she would be permanently moved to another line. While awaiting the updated medical report, the Respondent informed the Complainant that she was to refrain from working with onions until it had received clarity from its company doctor.

The Company's GP report confirmed that there was no allergy present but advised that the Complainant's exposure to onions should be limited. The Respondent submitted that it verbally offered the Complainant the option to move to a different vegetable line which she refused. This was denied by the Complainant.

The Respondent said that it also provided the Complainant with protective goggles to protect her eyes and limit the effects of the onions, however, the Respondent claimed that the Complainant opted not to wear these goggles for vanity reasons. The Respondent claimed the Complainant said that the goggles looked "stupid" and later said that they were "uncomfortable".

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant had received numerous warnings for continuing to refuse to carry out management instructions to work on the onion line and that following a disciplinary process, the Complainant was dismissed in February 2019.

The Respondent denied that it had discriminated against the Complainant by reason of her disability and that it had failed to reasonably accommodate her. The Respondent claimed that the medical evidence did not prove that the Complainant suffered from a disability. The Respondent also submitted that the Complainant refused to cooperate with it by wearing the protective goggles provided and refusing to work on a different line when offered.

Relevent Law ⚓︎

Section 7 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2021 ("the Acts") provides that an employer may not treat an employee with a disability less favourably than an employee who does not have a disability. Therefore, in order to succeed with her claim, the first requirement was for the Complainant to establish that she had a disability.

Section 2 of the Acts defines "disability" as follows:

• The total or partial absence of a person's bodily or mental functions, including the absence of a part of a person's body,
• The presence in the body of organisms causing, or likely to cause, chronic disease or illness,
• The malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of a person's body,
• A condition or malfunction which results in a person learning differently from a person without the condition or malfunction, or
• A condition, illness or disease which affects a person's though processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgment or which results in disturbed behaviour,

and shall be taken to include a disability which exists at present, or which previously existed but no longer exists, or which may exist in the future or which is imputed to a person.

Section 16(3) (a) of the Acts deals with reasonable accommodation and provides that a person with a disability is not to be regarded as other than fully capable of carrying out the duties of a post if, with the assistance of special treatment or facilities, they would be fully capable of carrying out those duties. Section 16(3)(b) of the Acts further places an obligation on the employer to do all that is reasonable to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability by providing such treatment or facilities.

Outcome ⚓︎

The Adjudication Officer (AO) found that the symptoms described by the Complainant fell within the definition of a disability in that there "was a malfunction of the eyes, nose and breathing due to the sulfenic acide released with processed onions".

The AO noted that there is no requirement for an employer to find another distinct and separate job for an employee with a disability but that there was a requirement to explore alternative modes of accommodation for the employee. The AO did not accept that the Respondent had provided reasonable accommodation to the Complainant, noting in particular, that it did not follow the the advice of the company's own doctor. It was also noted that the glasses provided to the Complainant were standard safety glasses and would not have done anything to alleviate the Complainant's symptoms.

Despite the medical advice that the Complainant should "avoid working with onions in the future" the AO noted that the Complainant remained working on the onion line and her failure to follow instructions regarding this work was the reason for her dismissal.

In deciding the appropriate redress, the AO took into account that the Complainant had 12 years service, working up to 39 hours a week at minimum wage. The AO awarded the Complainant compensation in the amount of €30,000 (approximately 1.5 years pay).

Key Takeaways for Employers  ⚓︎

1. Once an employer is on notice of an employee's disability, they have a duty to engage with the employee to ascertain what accommodations are required, if any.
2. Employers should consider seeking independent advice from a medical professional to determine what, if any, accommodations are required to assist the disabled employee in their role and crucially, they should follow the medical advice received in so far as reasonably practicable.
3. While there is no requirement for an employer to find another distinct job for an employee with a disability, there is a requirement to explore alternative modes of accommodation to establish if the position held by the employee with a disability is capable of adaptation to accommodate that employee i.e provide reasonable accommodation.
4. There is no service requirement for an employee bring a claim under the Employment Equality Acts. It is also interesting to note that the employee's length of service with the company was stated to be a factor in determining the level of compensation awarded in this case.