The Supreme Court has sent a disability discrimination case involving Nano Nagle School back to the Labour Court for a limited reconsideration. It did not decide whether the school unlawfully discriminated against Marie Daly or whether she could return to work as a special needs assistant (SNA) with reasonable accommodation.
Ms Daly, a qualified nurse, began working as an SNA at the school in 1998. After an accident in 2010 left her paralysed from the waist down, she sought to return to work using a wheelchair. The school assessed the work and declined her request in December 2011, after its occupational health adviser concluded she was not medically fit for the SNA role.
Ms Daly challenged the decision under the Employment Equality Acts, arguing that the school had failed to provide reasonable accommodation. An Equality Officer rejected her claim. The Labour Court reversed that decision, finding a failure to meet the accommodation duty and awarding her €40,000. The High Court upheld the Labour Court, but the Court of Appeal set those decisions aside, allowing the Equality Officer’s decision to stand.
In a judgment dated 31 July 2019, Mr Justice John MacMenamin, with whom four other Supreme Court judges were named on the panel, said the Labour Court’s determination did not meet its statutory duty to address relevant evidence and explain its reasoning. The Labour Court had not dealt with the entirety of occupational therapist Ina McGrath’s evidence, including evidence cited by the school that Ms Daly could not perform the SNA role even in a reorganised setting. The Supreme Court also identified an unresolved question about the school’s contact with the National Council for Special Education (NCSE) concerning possible funding for a “floating SNA” role.
The Court said reasonable accommodation can include redistribution of duties, subject to whether the measures would impose a disproportionate burden. It rejected the idea that the law limits redistribution to tasks labelled non-essential. But it also said an employer is not required to create an entirely different job, and that the question whether Ms Daly could perform the SNA position after reasonable accommodation remained for the Labour Court to determine.
The Supreme Court allowed Ms Daly’s appeal against the Court of Appeal order and remitted the matter to the Labour Court. The renewed consideration is limited to the NCSE consultation process and the full evidence of Ms McGrath, with any legal consequences. The Labour Court must determine whether there was unlawful discrimination and, if so, its precise nature. Any compensation award must have a reasoned basis. The Court stressed that its order predetermines no outcome; neither side may introduce other issues.