The Court of Appeal has allowed Nano Nagle School’s appeal in a disability discrimination case brought by Marie Daly, setting aside a Labour Court determination and vacating a €40,000 compensation award.
In a judgment delivered on 31 January 2018, the court held that the Labour Court had interpreted the employer’s reasonable accommodation obligations too broadly. It also set aside the High Court order that had upheld the Labour Court’s decision.
Ms Daly had worked as a special needs assistant at the school from 1998. After suffering serious injuries in a 2010 road traffic accident, she was confined to a wheelchair because of paraplegia and sought to return to work in January 2011.
An occupational therapist assessed 16 main duties of the role. She found that Ms Daly could fully or partly perform nine, with some adaptations or equipment, but could not perform seven even with such measures. The therapist suggested a “floating SNA” arrangement, but no such job existed at the school.
Ms Daly complained to the Equality Tribunal that the school had failed to provide reasonable accommodation. The complaint was rejected. On appeal, the Labour Court found that the school had a duty to consider redistributing tasks among other assistants so Ms Daly could return in a modified role. It awarded her €40,000 in compensation. The High Court upheld that decision.
The Court of Appeal said reasonable accommodation can, depending on the circumstances, include redistributing tasks associated with a duty. But the law did not require an employer to remove a main duty or essential function from a position by redistributing all the tasks demanded by that duty, or to create a new position.
The court said the school was not obliged to consider redistributing the seven main duties Ms Daly could not perform. It noted that no challenge had been made in the proceedings to whether those duties were properly identified as main duties of the SNA role.
The court allowed the appeal, vacated the High Court order, set aside the Labour Court determination and vacated the €40,000 award. The judgment concerns the version of the Employment Equality Act that applied when the Labour Court made its decision.