This case involved an appeal to the Labour Court by the worker against a decision of the Equality Officer. The case involved a claim by the employee which claimed that the school failed to provide her with reasonable accommodation for her disability to allow her to continue in employment.

The respondent in this case is a special school which accommodates children with moderate, severe and profound disabilities. The complainant worked for the respondent as a special needs assistant and also had part time secretarial duties.

The complainant suffered serious spinal injuries as a result of an accident, the consequence of which meant that the complainant is now paralysed from the waist down and now uses a wheelchair. The complainant said that during the time in which she was in receiving treatment, the principal remained in contact with her and reassured her “that her job was safe”. The year following her accident the complainant wished to return to work. Following assessments being carried out, the respondent reached the decision that the complainant lacked the capacity to fully undertake the duties of her role and therefore declined to allow her to return to work.

Whilst the complainant recognised that her disability prevented her from completing all the tasks associated with her position she claimed that an onus was upon the respondent to consider reorganising duties which she cannot perform among other colleagues, whilst assigning her tasks that she could perform. The respondent, however, contended that as a result of both medical and professional advice it was clear that the complainant “lacked the capacity to perform” the duties required of her.

The complainant suggested in evidence that during her final consultation with the Doctor (occupational health practice) on her fitness to return to work, he informed her that he was obliged to certify that the complainant was unfit for work because “he had been told by the Respondent that it was not prepared to provide the necessary accommodation so as to allow her to resume working.”

The respondent argued that the role the complainant occupied carried out was demanding in nature, including how the staff were trained to provide feeding, toileting and other care activity to the pupils while at school. In the opinion of the Principal of the school the position required “every faculty that an able bodied person has”. The respondent was further of the opinion that the level of accommodation that would was required to enable the complainant to return to work was impossible.

The court held that whilst the complainant was severely limited by her disability, in the fact that she could not carry out all the duties which were required of her role, she could undertake many of the duties required of her. The court noted how the respondent had “construed its duty too narrowly” in considering what it could do to accommodate the complainant.

The court noted how the respondent had failed to give any consideration to any possibilities of accommodation such as modifying the complainant’s duties for a trial period. The court also highlighted how it was significant that the respondent failed to offer to complainant the renewal of her secretarial role which the complainant would have been able to perform “with little or no adjustments”.

The court held the failure of the respondent to consider all the options meant that it failed to discharge its duty to take adequate measures to provide the complainant with reasonable accommodation to allow the complainant to return to work. Consequently, the court awarded the complainant €40,000 by way of compensation.

To read the full case review:
http://bit.ly/1nyqmmb