In this appeal from an equality Officer's recommendation, the complainant worked for the respondent until he was dismissed. The complainant claimed that he was discriminatorily dismissed on the grounds of disability.

The complainant was asked to attend a meeting with the operations manager, he was given no reasoning or details as to the purpose of the meeting. At this meeting the complainant was informed that he was dismissed with immediate effect and there was dispute as to the reasons for the dismissal. The complainant argued that he was informed that the reasons for his dismissal surrounded the fact that he had been absent for 23 days; the respondent suggested that the reason for dismissal was a combination of his level of absence and his poor performance levels. 

The complainant was suffering from depression, which is a medically diagnosed disability. The complainant argued that the respondent gave “no objective grounds justifying the dismissal at any stage”; added to this he noted how “no reasonable accommodation was offered to him to enable him to discharge his duties while suffering a disability”. 

The respondent argued that the complainant was not suffering from a disability but rather from an illness as in order for a disability to be classified as such “it must be probable that it will last for a long time”; founding this submission on the CJEU case of Chacon Navas. It should be noted that the court did not accept this interpretation of the case. 

The court noted that whilst the respondent was aware that the complainant was suffering from depression, the respondent had failed to make any inquiries into his condition; the respondent kept itself ignorant of the complainant’s condition. The court held that at a minimum “an employer should ensure that he or she in full possession of all the material facts concerning the employee’s condition”; however it did note that the nature and extent of the enquiries made would depend on individual circumstances of the case. 

The court held that, “...given the proximity of the time between the complainant’s diagnosis and the decision to dismiss him the court takes the view that the complainant has established a prima facie case that his dismissal may have been influenced by his disability.” The court therefore held that the complainant was discriminatorily dismissed by the respondent on the grounds of disability; added to this the respondent didn’t provide appropriate measures to allow the complainant to continue in employment. The complainant received €12,000 compensation for the discriminatory treatment he suffered. 
http://bit.ly/1lNyoek