Autism

In the recent case of Dylan O’Riordan v Omniplex Cork Limited ADJ-00051601/2024 the Complainant alleged discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation and victimisation by reason of disability. The Complainant who had been diagnosed with autism clearly outlined the impact that his condition had on his working life. He gave evidence of difficulties with eye contact, meltdowns and symptoms of morbidity and depression.  The Complainant made the case that he informed his manager on many occasions he was having severe difficulties, to include one occasion where he had to leave his shift early. The Complainant sought to be accommodated by consistent roster scheduling, two days off to rest on a weekly basis and not being placed on exclusively "closes". There were ongoing emails exchanged between the Complainant and HR to try to address the Complainant's multiple grievances and a referral to Occupational Health.  It was alleged that the Complainant's health continued to deteriorate due to a failure to provide reasonable accommodations. The Complainant was on extended sick leave from March 2024 until he resigned in June 2024. The Complainant had lodged a complaint to the WRC in May 2025. It was the Respondent's position that the internal workplace procedures were not given time to conclude and were not fully utilised by the Complainant before he took that step.

Ultimately, the Adjudicator found in favour of the Complainant in respect of the discrimination claim and the failure to provide reasonable accommodation. It was accepted that autism fell under the definition of disability under equality legislation. The Adjudicator noted that accommodations were provided for pregnant employees and students in relation to arranging suitable shifts but that no such accommodation was afforded to the Complainant by reason of his position as fulltime duty manager.  Despite the fact there was ongoing engagement between HR and the Complainant the Adjudication Officer found that the "acute needs" of the Complainant were not fully addressed.  It was acknowledged by the Adjudication Officer that efforts were made by the Respondent between November and April to reach some agreement with the Complainant with various proposals being made by both sides and that the matter was complicated by 16 separate grievances raised by the Complainant. The failure to agree two consecutive days off to allow for adequate rest as recommended by Occupational Health at an early stage appears to have been a key factor in the determination. An award of €12,000 compensation was made to the Complainant and the Respondent was directed to engage awareness training or workshops to introduce a positive management approach to staff with neurological complex conditions such as autism.

ADHD

In the case of Jennifer Keane v Edwards Vacuum Technology Ireland Limited ADJ-00049319/2024 the Complainant alleged that she was discriminated against on the grounds of disability, namely autism and ADHD, when was she was not afforded the opportunity to interview for an internal role with the Respondent.  No evidence was provided by the Complainant in relation to her alleged disability. It was denied by the Respondent that they were aware of disability when making the decision not to interview the Complainant. The Respondent also denied that the Complainant was discriminated against on the grounds of her disability and gave evidence that four candidates applied for the role of which two were shortlisted for interview. The selection criteria used in assessing the applications were attendance, experience, and length of service. Both shortlisted candidates had more relevant experience in the roles than the Complainant and had perfect attendance records, unlike the Complainant. References were made to the Complainant's " recent issues and "stability" in rejecting her for interview. It was noted that the 19 days leave she took off in the period prior to the interview were not exclusively related to her condition. Based on the evidence provided the Adjudication Officer accepted that the Complainant's conditions fell under the definition of a disability but determined the Complainant had not made out a prima facie case of discrimination.

Dyslexia 

In the case of A Complainant v A Retail Organisation ADJ-00024028/2020 the Complainant alleging he was discriminated against on grounds of disability (dyslexia and dyspraxia) in relation to access to a Graduate Programme with the Respondent and that there was a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. The assessment for the programme included a Gamified assessment. The Complainant was rejected by e-mail based on Gamified results. The Complainant contended that he had difficulties in completing these assessments due to the way in which he processes written and visual information. For example, block tests and sequences will all start to look the same in repetition to a person with dyslexia which means providing extra time would have been of no benefit with these tests. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent did not provide any reasonable accommodation despite the fact he had disclosed on the application form that he had dyslexia and dyspraxia. It was the Respondent's case that the online assessment allowed candidates with difficulties an extra 25 % of time to complete the same assessments and that the Complainant chose not to accept the additional time or to engage with the additional supports offered through the online assessment pages themselves. The Respondent confirmed a pass rate of 487/1000.The Complainant scored below the pass rate and was not advanced to the next stage. The Adjudication Officer accepted the Complainant’s disability which is dyslexia and dyspraxia fell within the definition of disability under equality legislation. However, based on the evidence provided the Adjudicator found in favour of the Respondent and both complaints failed.

It is worth noting that the cases of Caoimhe Gorrell v Jigsaw - The Centre Of Youth Mental Health ADJ-00045685/2023 and A Sales Executive v A Company ADJ-00039418/2024 reference dyscalculia and Tourettes. We have not addressed these cases in detail here as no discussion of the conditions and any prospective accommodations was contained within the decisions.

Learnings

Employers should be live to employees and candidates with neurodiverse conditions and should take the following steps:

• Encourage candidates to disclose any disability at recruitment stage and make reasonable accommodations available, as required.
  
  
• Clearly notify and operate an Equal Opportunities Policy in the workplace.
  
  
• Consider any accommodations that may be required at recruitment stage.
  
  
• If an employee raises concerns regarding their condition explore those concerns in a constructive way, with the assistance of expert advice.
  
  
• Given the wide range of difficulties neurodiverse employees can suffer employers should focus on the issues outlined by the employee and accommodations sought by them, supported by medical evidence to try to agree accommodations.
  
  
• Actively engage with the employee in relation to proposals. If an employee's proposal is not viable due to cost or commercial reasons provide an explanation when declining the proposal and make a counter proposal ensuring all proposals align with current medical advice.
  
  
• Carefully consider any attached cost to proposed accommodations, bearing in mind the cost should not be disproportionate.
   
  
• Don’t delay in addressing concerns.

DAC Beachcroft Dublin

www.dacbeachcroft.com/en/