This claim was upheld in the Tribunal and the complainant was awarded €20,000.  He suffered from varicose veins and after several operations his surgeon was reluctant to operate again.  The complainant was considered unfit for work as a sales assistant which required long periods of standing.

When the parties met on 2 October 2009 to address the matter what actually was discussed is unclear but it appears that the complainant sought a severance package and the respondent formed the view that the complainant’s first choice was a severance package rather than a reasonable accommodation.  The respondent considered the situation and considered alternatives for the complainant before deciding, at Board level, that he be dismissed.

The Court found that the respondent had partially discharged its obligation in terms of reasonable accommodation in line with Humphries v Westwood Fitness in that it had not engaged with the complainant when considering his medical condition and whether reasonable accommodation could be made to enable him to work.  However, the Court also found that in seeking a severance package the complainant has contributed in large measure to the confusion regarding his preferred options.  The Court considered that the appropriate redress was €10,000 which is half what was originally awarded by the Tribunal.

Why this case is of interest

• The respondent halved the award against it by taking the appeal
• The behaviour of the complainant was taken into account when considering what the appropriate award might be.

Read the full case here: http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2014/April/EDA1412.html