WRC Awards €20,000 Where Employer Failed to Properly Assess Reasonable Accommodation Request

A recent Workplace Relations Commission ("WRC") decision provides an important reminder to employers that policies, contractual arrangements or external funding restrictions do not remove the obligation to properly consider reasonable accommodation for an employee with a disability.

In Laura Beresford v South Munster Money Advice & Budgeting Service CLG (ADJ-00057297), the WRC found that the Respondent had discriminated against the Complainant on the disability ground contrary to the Employment Equality Acts 1998–2015 ("the Acts").

The case concerned an employee diagnosed with Vestibular Migraine who sought to reduce her working week from 35 to 28 hours to assist in managing her condition. The employer declined the request, principally because its funding arrangements with the Citizens Information Board ("CIB") provided for contracts of either 17.5 or 35 hours.

The WRC ultimately found that the employer had not sufficiently examined the employee's individual circumstances or demonstrated that the accommodation sought would impose a disproportionate burden.

Background

The Complainant became unwell in or around April 2024 and was subsequently diagnosed with Vestibular Migraine. Her symptoms included dizziness, fatigue and headaches and, according to her evidence, became particularly difficult to manage when she was overtired or worked continuously without adequate rest.

Following a period of absence, she returned to work in July 2024. At that point, she advised her employer of her diagnosis and supplied medical evidence from her GP confirming that she was fit to return to work. Her GP also indicated that a reduction in working hours would assist her in managing the condition.

On 11 July 2024, the Complainant formally sought to reduce her working week from five days and 35 hours to four days and 28 hours, with one of those days to be worked remotely.

The Respondent subsequently referred her to Occupational Health. The Occupational Health report dated 22 July 2024 similarly indicated that a four-day working week, including one working-from-home day, would be beneficial, subject to operational feasibility.

Why was the request refused?

The Respondent was funded by the Citizens Information Board and maintained that it was subject to restrictions governing the working hours available under employment contracts.

According to the Respondent, the CIB funding structure permitted contracts of either 17.5 hours for part-time employees or 35 hours for full-time employees. It therefore maintained that it did not have discretion to permanently place the Complainant on a 28-hour contract and that departing from the applicable funding arrangements could potentially put funding at risk.

The Complainant continued working her normal hours and initially used annual leave to take one day off each week to assist in managing her symptoms. As her annual leave entitlement reduced, she changed this to one day of annual leave approximately every two weeks.

She subsequently raised a formal grievance in October 2024 and provided further medical evidence. Her request remained unsuccessful. A temporary four-day arrangement was subsequently proposed, but this was dependent upon the Respondent securing cover for the remaining hours. The absence of backfill for a considerable period meant that the Complainant continued working full weeks despite the difficulties she was experiencing.

The Complainant's case was that the Respondent had not genuinely explored the accommodation she required. Instead, she argued that the funding rule had effectively been applied as a blanket policy without sufficient consideration of her particular medical circumstances.

The Respondent's position

The Respondent disputed that it had failed in its obligations.

One of the arguments advanced was that neither the Complainant's GP nor Occupational Health had expressly described her condition as a "disability" for the purposes of the Employment Equality Acts.

It was also argued that the medical recommendations described reduced hours as something that would be beneficial rather than stating that such an arrangement was medically essential or permanent.

The Respondent further pointed to other measures it had made available to the Complainant, including a phased return to work, changes to workload and client allocation, remote working, ergonomic adjustments, breaks and the possibility of a temporary four-day week subject to operational requirements.

Was Vestibular Migraine a disability?

Before considering whether reasonable accommodation had been provided, the Adjudicator, Úna Glazier-Farmer, first had to determine whether the Complainant had a disability within the meaning of the Acts.

Section 2 of the Employment Equality Acts contains a broad definition of disability. Of particular relevance was section 2(c), which includes:

"the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of a person's body".

Importantly, the absence of the word "disability" from the GP or Occupational Health reports was not determinative.

The Adjudicator considered the question of whether a medical condition falls within the statutory definition of disability to be ultimately a legal question. The medical evidence remained relevant in establishing the nature of the condition, its symptoms and its effect on the individual.

Both medical reports confirmed the diagnosis of Vestibular Migraine, while the evidence demonstrated that the condition resulted in ongoing symptoms including dizziness, fatigue and headaches and affected the Complainant's ability to sustain her normal working arrangements without adjustments.

Reference was also made to the English Employment Tribunal decision in Mr E Milrine v DHL Services Ltd (4105494/2022), in which Vestibular Migraine had been found to constitute a disability for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. While an English Employment Tribunal decision is not binding in Ireland, it provided relevant comparative authority in circumstances where there did not appear to have been an equivalent Irish decision dealing specifically with Vestibular Migraine.

Having considered the evidence, the Adjudicator was satisfied that the Complainant's condition constituted a malfunction affecting bodily function and that its effect on her ability to perform normal working duties was more than trivial or temporary.

The Complainant was therefore found to have a disability within the meaning of the Employment Equality Acts.

Had reasonable accommodation been properly considered?

The WRC then considered the Respondent's obligations under section 16(3) of the Acts.

The significant issue was not simply that the Complainant had asked for a 28-hour working week and that the request had been refused. Rather, the WRC examined how the employer had assessed the request before reaching that decision.

Although the Respondent had engaged with the Complainant and had provided or proposed a number of adjustments, the Adjudicator was not satisfied that there had been a sufficiently substantive and individualised assessment of whether the particular reduction in hours could be facilitated.

The medical evidence consistently supported reduced working hours. However, the Respondent relied principally upon the CIB funding arrangements when refusing a permanent 28-hour contract.

There was insufficient evidence that the Respondent had investigated whether an exception or alternative arrangement might be possible, or otherwise meaningfully explored how the recommended reduction in hours could be facilitated.

The WRC made clear that the existence of a general rule or policy is not, by itself, sufficient to discharge an employer's obligations to an employee with a disability. The individual circumstances of the employee must be considered.

Funding restrictions were not regarded as irrelevant. Such considerations may form part of an assessment of whether a proposed accommodation would impose a disproportionate burden on an employer. However, in this case, the Respondent had not established that accommodating the Complainant's requested working arrangement would actually have amounted to such a burden.

The fact that the Complainant had resorted to using her annual leave to reduce her working week was also not regarded as an appropriate alternative to addressing the reasonable accommodation request.

The WRC's decision

The WRC upheld the complaint and found that the Respondent had failed to comply with its reasonable accommodation obligations, resulting in discrimination on the disability ground.

Under section 82 of the Employment Equality Acts, the Respondent was ordered to pay the Complainant €20,000 in compensation for the effects of the discrimination.

The Respondent was also directed to review the Complainant's working arrangements in consultation with her and with reference to updated medical evidence, with a view to identifying and implementing appropriate reasonable accommodation.

In addition, the Respondent was required to review its policies and procedures to ensure that requests for reasonable accommodation are subject to an individual assessment informed by medical evidence, including in circumstances where external funding arrangements may affect the options available.

What does this mean for employers?

The significance of this decision extends beyond requests for reduced working hours.

Where an employer becomes aware that an employee may have a disability and an adjustment is sought or medically recommended, the employer should avoid moving directly from an existing policy or operational restriction to a refusal.

Instead, there should be a genuine assessment of the employee's individual circumstances, the relevant medical evidence, the accommodation being sought and any reasonable alternatives that may be available.

Employers should also be cautious about relying on the fact that a GP or Occupational Health practitioner has not expressly used the word "disability". Whether a condition satisfies the definition of disability under the Employment Equality Acts is ultimately a legal question and the statutory definition is broad.

Similarly, cost, operational requirements and external funding restrictions may be relevant when considering whether an accommodation would create a disproportionate burden. However, an employer relying on those factors should be in a position to demonstrate that they were actually investigated and assessed rather than simply asserted.

In practical terms, employers dealing with a reasonable accommodation request should be able to evidence:

• consideration of the employee's individual circumstances and medical information;
• engagement with the employee about the accommodation required;
• an assessment of whether the proposed measure can reasonably be implemented;
• consideration of alternative accommodations where the preferred option cannot be facilitated;
• investigation of any internal or external restrictions relied upon when refusing an adjustment; and
• where disproportionate burden is relied upon, a documented assessment supporting that conclusion.

The decision in Beresford demonstrates that the process undertaken by an employer can be just as important as the eventual decision. An employer may ultimately have legitimate reasons why a particular accommodation cannot be provided, but it should be able to demonstrate that the request was individually and meaningfully assessed before reaching that conclusion.

WorkWise HR Perspective

For employers, the practical lesson is not that every request for reduced hours or another workplace adjustment must automatically be granted. The obligation is to properly examine what may reasonably enable an employee with a disability to participate in employment, taking account of the particular circumstances and the question of disproportionate burden.

Had there been clear evidence in this case that the Respondent had engaged with the CIB, investigated whether flexibility or an exception was available, considered alternative ways of structuring the hours and documented why those options were not feasible, the assessment of whether the employer had discharged its obligations may have been materially different.

The safest approach is therefore to avoid blanket decisions. Reasonable accommodation should be treated as an individual process, supported by appropriate medical evidence, meaningful consultation and a documented assessment of what can reasonably be done.