The complainant worked for 4 years in the shop, first as a sales assistant and then as an assistant manager.  The shop was owned by two individuals who appear to have had a breakdown in their relationship resulting in the complainant being asked by one to spy on the other and she was caught in the crossfire. She went on sick leave due to work-related stress on 2 March 2011.

The respondent appears to have behaved oddly in respect of accepting her sick cert and in issuing the complainant with contract of employment and employment handbook on 10 March 2011.  The complainant was dismissed by letter on 23 March 2011.

The respondent argued that work related stress was not a disability within the meaning of the Acts.  However, the Equality Officer stated that “disability must be looked at ‘in the round’.  It cannot be a game of bingo where a complainant’s doctor labels a condition on the medical certificate in a certain way and the disability provisions automatically apply and s(he) calls it something else and the disability provisions do not apply”.

The Equality Officer was satisfied that the complainant had informed one of owners Mr. Z that she was not sleeping and was suffering panic attacks, thereby putting the employer on notice of those problems.  The Equality Officer stated that that information combined with the medical certificates would have prompted a prudent employer to seek a second opinion.  The Equality Officer appears to have accepted that Anorexia Nervosa was a ‘sequelae’ of the complainant’s condition.

However, there is no indication that the respondent was aware of the complainant’s Anorexia Nervosa on 23 March 2011 when she was dismissed.  What it was aware of is that she was not sleeping, suffered panic attacks (both of which could arguably be considered symptoms of stress) and was suffering from work-related stress.  The Equality Officer has accepted the complainant’s condition as a disability within the meaning of section 2(e) of the Acts.  She further accepted that the treatment of the complainant amounted to discrimination and that there was a nexus between her disability and her dismissal.

Why is this case of interest?

• Up to now, work-related stress has not been considered a disability for the purposes of the Acts.  Without clarity as to whether the anorexia nervosa was included ‘in the round’ in the complainant’s condition, it is unclear whether the decision accepts work-related stress, combined with panic attacks and not sleeping as constituting a disability in terms of the Acts.

• Are employers no required to look behind medical certificates to assess if the disability provisions apply?

• Looking at both of these first two decisions arguably the message is that medical information should be interpreted carefully and with an eye to the disability provisions regardless of the words used.

Read the Full Case Decision Here:

http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2013/November/DEC-E2013-149.html