The complainant in this case worked as a Service Operator for the respondent on a client site.  He was assigned to chemical waste disposal and lifted 10L and 25L drums to shoulder height for decanting.  While lifting one of the latter he suffered a neck injury in August 2009 and was dismissed in March 2010.

As with many disability cases the Labour Court Decision Humphreys v Westwood Fitness Club EED037 was referred to.  In this case the complainant was of the view that the employer had assumed, on foot of the medical reports, that he could not do any manual handling.  The Equality officer agreed.  She went on to say that “The respondent was hasty in dismissing [the complainant’s] suggestions for appropriate measures.  In addition she indicated that the respondent had offered the complainant another role on a different site 70 miles away saying “This suggestion does not qualify as reasonable accommodation”.  The respondent “simply did not explore options thoroughly enough before terminating his employment to avail of the defence in Section 16(3).

The Equality Officer found that the respondent was not proactive in exploring appropriate measures.  She also found that the suggestions made by the complainant would not have placed a disproportionate financial burden on the respondent, “being a multi-national enterprise with significant resources”.

The complainant was awarded €38,000 which is equivalent to a year’s salary.

Why is this case of interest?