This case concerns an alleged failure of the Respondent to accommodate the Complainant with returning to work following an injury amounting to discrimination on the ground of disability under the Employment Equality Act.

The Complaint went on sick leave due to an arm injury in July 2018. The Complainant claimed that she was treated unfairly as she was denied the option to continue working for the respondent due to her disabilities. It was argued in support of the complainant's claim that if she had been provided with reasonable accommodations for her impairment, she could have returned to work and avoided the less-favourable treatment complained of.

According to the medical evidence presented at the hearing, the Complainant was able to perform light duties while recuperating from her injury. In the circumstances, the Respondent claimed that no such light duties were available. Based on the evidence, the Adjudication Officer concluded that no serious consideration was given to how the Complainant could be accommodated or to thoroughly investigate how her duties and tasks may be altered to accomplish that objective.

On the 18th of February 2019, the medical advisor provided that the Complainant was fit for "modified duty." Three more reports followed, all of which indicated some fitness for duty but not "normal duty."  The earliest record of the Complainant being denied reasonable accommodation may be found in the Complainant's record of a phone conversation. While the deciding officer did engage in subsequent communications regarding possible alternative duties, the Respondent never stated the actual reason for refusing a reasonable accommodation, not in writing, not in detail, and certainly not in terms that related to Section 16 of the Employment Equality Act, either before or after May 2019. In this matter, the HSE was found to have failed to show that they applied the terms of Section 16(3) to the Complainant in any relevant way, and even if they claim otherwise, they failed to give evidence of any meaningful consideration of the application of Section 16(3) to the Complainant.

Failure to present stated grounds for refusing a reasonable accommodation would leave the employee in limbo, causing her to compare herself to others in the workplace and feeling treated unfairly. Furthermore, the employee's obligation to give such material is required for him or her to make a well-founded appeal. In other words, the decision should one that is based on the employer's view as well as the law.

There was no extensive medical assessment of the Complainant's tasks compared to his or her function in this case. The absence of a full medical assessment has been cited by the union as a failing of the Respondent's duties in this case. The HSE did not conduct such an evaluation and relied on one component of a vast range of duties and responsibilities expected of any paramedic in their own testimony at this inquiry, depending entirely on one part of their primary duties and responsibilities.

The Respondent assessed the Complainant in this case based on a limited assessment of the complainant's disability, concluding that she was unable to perform them, thus relying on the complainant's disability to exclude the complainants from the workforce based on their criteria rather than those set out in section 16 of the Act. As a result, they discriminated against the Complainant on the ground of disability.

The Complainant was successful in the claim of discrimination. The Adjudication Officer requested a review conducted by the HSE on the application of the Employment Equality Act 1998 as well as awarding €65000 to the complaint by application of section 82 of the Employment Equality Acts.

The findings in the case advance further the issues around the application of the Employment Equality Acts in the case of emergency service personnel (see also IPS v Cunningham); addresses the comparator for the purposes of a complaint on the disability ground; defines a failure to provide  reasonable accommodation as a form of discrimination within the meaning of the legislation and measures appropriate compensation  against the  full terms of Section 82 of the Act together with the application of the principles of the Von Colson judgment regarding the need for awards of compensation to be proportionate, effective and dissuasive in effect.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2021/august/adj-00024740.html