A Supreme Court judge has set out why he would uphold the decision to overturn a €40,000 Labour Court award to Marie Daly in her disability discrimination case against Nano Nagle School in Tralee, while dissenting from the result proposed by another judge.
Mr Justice Peter Charleton’s judgment, delivered on July 31, 2019, concerned an appeal from the Court of Appeal. He partly agreed with Mr Justice John MacMenamin’s analysis but dissented as to the proposed result. Charleton J said the Court of Appeal’s order setting aside the Labour Court determination and vacating its compensation award should be upheld, but on narrower grounds.
Daly, a qualified nurse who worked as a special needs assistant, suffered a spinal injury in an accident in July 2010 and later used a wheelchair. The school kept her job open while she underwent treatment and rehabilitation. She sought to return, but the school concluded that she could not undertake the work. Charleton J described the role as highly responsible and physically demanding.
The judgment addressed the Employment Equality Act 1998 and the duty to make reasonable accommodation for a worker with a disability. Charleton J said the assessment should focus on the actual work and whether practical adjustments would enable the person to perform it. He also said the Act did not require an employer to redeploy a worker to a different role.
Charleton J criticised the Labour Court’s handling of the occupational therapy evidence, saying that effectively rewriting the report amounted to an error of law. He said the school had allowed Daly to consult a doctor and engage with the practical effects of her disability on the job. In his view, the legislation did not require a further procedure based on a possible accommodation plan.
The Court of Appeal had set aside the Labour Court determination and vacated its €40,000 award. Charleton J would uphold that order on the grounds in his judgment. This was his separate opinion in the Supreme Court appeal; the source does not set out the Court’s overall disposition in this judgment.