Lessons to be learned for employers as WRC awards €25,000 to an employee with Alzheimer’s on the grounds that the employer failed to provide reasonable accommodation, despite certain accommodations being provided.

A recently published Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) decision highlights the responsibilities of employers in terms of the importance of implementing reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities and provides guidance on the extent of enquiries that should be made into any supports available.

Background

The complainant commenced employment with the respondent, a large retailer, in 2005 and worked as a Line Manager for several years and subsequently a Customer Assistant. He was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease in 2022. The complainant alleged that he was discriminated against on disability grounds, was not afforded reasonable accommodation, was harassed due to his disability and that he was not paid his wages. The respondent denied the claims in full and contended that reasonable accommodation was provided until the complainant was declared medically unfit to work and that the complainant was paid in accordance with the respondent’s sick pay scheme.

Complainant’s Case

The complainant’s partner gave evidence on his behalf. It was alleged that the complainant had been demoted after a diagnosis of probable Alzheimer’s disease, which was subsequently confirmed, the specialist consultant had recommended that the complainant work fixed daily shifts which was not implemented from the outset and that other recommendations such as memory aids and planograms were not implemented. It was stated that no outside support or external funding was sought by the retail store, despite a support group being open to the respondent contacting them. It was also stated that a new technique was implemented for stacking shelves which the complainant’s partner stated may have caused him difficulty.

The complainant’s partner alleged that as the respondent was pressuring the complainant to attend a meeting with medical clearance that he was fit to return to work, she then instructed a solicitor. It was submitted on behalf of the complainant that the incidents of discrimination spanned over several years.

Respondent’s Case

A witness for the respondent stated that he would assist the complainant in setting up his daily tasks and that, while initially there was no change in shift pattern, the complainant was then accommodated with mostly 10am to 6 pm shifts. He submitted that he had noticed a deterioration in the complainant’s work and capacity for information and that he would sometimes show up on days not rostered and could leave stock on the floor which was a potential health and safety hazard. It was stated that the complainant could become upset or wander off occasionally and that the change to the system of stocking shelves was done to assist the complainant.

A further witness stated that once he became aware of the diagnosis, he supported the complainant by meeting him at the clocking machine and ensuring his health and safety. He added that there were no written reminders or planograms put in place, as this was not feasible due to the shelving layout. He claimed the new stocking technique was implemented to make it easier for the employee. When asked about contacting the support group he advised that he did not see this as his role and that he did the best he could.

The Store Manager said he had noticed a “deterioration” in the complainant’s work and “did not want an incident to arise with the store left liable”. In June 2025, he wrote to the complainant to obtain a medical report and the complainant was put on paid sick leave. In July 2025, a specialist report confirmed that the employee was fit to continue working in his existing role, provided appropriate accommodations were made. However, a further occupational health review that same month questioned whether he remained fit for work but left the final decision up to management. The Store Manager submitted that due to conflicting medical reports, a third medical opinion was needed. He advised that the occupational health provider recommended that the complainant should seek this third opinion and the store would pay for it.

It was submitted that the complainant had given no direct testimony to establish a prima facie case and that the third medical opinion concluded that the complainant was unfit for work and this fact was concealed, until disclosed at the WRC hearing. It was also submitted that the Store Manager had to make a difficult decision particularly as safety issues were arising on the shop floor and that occupational health recommendations were taken on board in that pragmatic changes were made to accommodate the complainant.

WRC Decision

The Adjudication Officer decided to anonymise the decision due to the personal health details of the complainant.

The complainant did have a disability which was not in dispute. The Adjudication Officer found that the respondent had been put on notice of the complainant’s health issues at an early stage and questions had also been raised as to whether reasonable accommodations were provided. On that basis the Adjudication Officer decided that a prima facie case or inferences of discrimination had been made. It was therefore up to the respondent to rebut the presumption of discrimination. The issue to be decided was whether reasonable accommodation was provided, whether there was discriminatory treatment when the complainant was demoted and whether he was harassed due to his disability.

Demotion and harassment complaints

It was submitted that the complainant was demoted in April 2024, which is outside the 12 months’ time limit, given the complaint was received by the WRC in June 2025.  The respondent raised an objection at the commencement of the hearing that some alleged incidents of discrimination were out of time. The Adjudication Officer found that the demotion claim was out of time.

It was submitted that the letter from the Store Manager requesting an urgent medical report in June 2025 was harassment due to the complainant’s disability. While the Adjudication Officer found that the actions could be described as inconsiderate, it was stated by the Store Manager that his motivation was to ensure the complainant was fit to be in work, and that he acted in accordance with the respondent’s policies. The Adjudication Officer found that insufficient evidence was presented to establish that this treatment was directly targeted at the complainant’s disability and, as such, the harassment claim was not upheld.

Reasonable Accommodation

Section 16 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 – 2015 (the “Equality Acts”) detail the obligations of an employer to provide reasonable accommodation. The Adjudication Officer stated that the Supreme Court’s decision in the Nano Nagle Case was of assistance as it describes the concepts of ‘appropriate measures’ and ‘disproportionate burden’ and reiterated that:

“The test must be one of fact, to be determined in accordance with the employment context…….. The test is one of reasonableness and proportionality: an employer cannot be under a duty entirely to re-designate or create a different job to facilitate an employee. It is therefore, the duty of the deciding tribunal to decide, in any given case, whether, in reality, what is sought in an entirely different job. Section 16(1) of the Act refers specifically to “the position”, not to an alternative and quite different position”.

The Adjudication Officer also stated that the nature and extent of the enquiries which an employer should make will depend on the circumstances of each case.

The Adjudication Officer held that despite the pro-active actions taken by the respondent, there was a lack of co-ordination and proper assessment of the complainant’s requirements. Store Management were doing their best although it was without the necessary expertise or support. There appeared to be no plan or enquiries made on what appropriate support was available, for example management within the store gave evidence that it was not their role to contact the support group or to enquire about a work buddy. The onus was on the employer to at least make enquiries on supports available. The Adjudication Officer stated that:

“As all options were not considered, a vacuum existed and matters unfolded on an ad hoc basis without any expertise or independent assessment on appropriate adaptations.”

The Adjudication Officer also stated that according to the Nano Nagle Case:

“The duty laid down under s. 16 (3)(d) is mandatory. An employer is to explore the possibility of obtaining public funding or other assistance.”

The Labour Court decision of Occipital v. Joseph Hayes (EDA184) was also referred to which states that:

“If all the options that may be available are not adequately considered the employer cannot form a bona fide belief that they are impossible, unreasonable or disproportionate”.

It was held that an independent assessment focussed on the complainant and respondent needs would clearly have benefited both parties. The Adjudication Officer noted that the respondent is a large retail store, and therefore a proper assessment or enquiries involving outside supports would not have been a disproportionate burden on them. The Adjudication Officer was satisfied that the “the respondent did not comprehensibly assess what reasonable accommodation, if any, could be provided” and the complainant was not afforded reasonable accommodation in breach of the Equality Acts.

The respondent was ordered to to pay €25,000 in compensation and directed to review their policies with the relevant trade unions on the accommodation and treatment of staff with disabilities. The Adjudication Officer did not uphold the payment of wages claim on the basis that the respondent’s policy outlined sick pay entitlements and this was also a term of employment.  

Key Takeaways for Employers

Employers must go further than ad hoc localised accommodations.

It is vital that employers:

  • Ensure there is a central point of contact and management, preferably HR.  
  • Ensure that those managing employees directly are given adequate support.
  • Ensure there is a plan in place and all options and accommodations are considered.
  • Consider and communicate the employer’s response back to the employee if an employee raises possible accommodations or they are raised on the employee’s behalf, and ensure the response is recorded. If the employer’s position is that they are not practical, the employer should be able to evidence and support their position.
  • Engage with the employee, this is key.
  • Obtain specialist expert medical and practical advice and support on what accommodations can be provided.
  • Engage an independent third-party provider where there is conflicting medical evidence.
  • Treat each situation on its own merits.
  • Ensure that policies are clear and reviewed and updated regularly and employees are trained on the policies.

While the legal principles in this case are not new, it is important to understand that taking proactive steps alone to accommodate an employee may not be sufficient. The onus is on the employer to consider all the options that may be available. If you don’t the defence that such accommodations amounted to a “disproportionate burden” will not be available.  

Where such difficult situations arise, internal and external support should be sought at an early stage.

For more information or assistance, please contact Caoimhe Heery, Claire McDermott or any member of the Flynn O’Driscoll Employment Team.

This article is current as at 18/08/2026 and is provided for information only and does not constitute legal advice.

‍

No items found.