The High Court dismissed Kim Cahill’s appeal over annotations on her Leaving Certificate, holding that the Department of Education and Science acted reasonably in recording examination elements that had not been assessed after she received an exemption related to dyslexia.
The appeal was on a point of law from a Circuit Court decision that had set aside an Equality Tribunal finding in Cahill’s favour. She sought €6,000 compensation and a replacement certificate without the annotation. She did not challenge the exemption itself; she argued that recording it identified her by implication as a person with a disability and was discriminatory.
Cahill told the Circuit Court that the notation caused embarrassment and distress when peers asked about it. Her case was that the annotation undermined the equality intended by reasonable accommodation and disclosed private information. She also argued that standardised examinations were inherently discriminatory for a student with dyslexia.
The Department argued that the exemption affected assessment of core skills, including spelling, grammar and punctuation, and that the certificate needed to disclose this to preserve the examination’s integrity. Its expert evidence distinguished between accommodations that change access to an exam and those that alter or prevent assessment of the skills the exam is designed to test. The Department submitted that the latter require an annotation or must not be granted.
Mr Justice de Valera concluded that an exemption of this kind could not be granted without some indication on the certificate. He found that omitting the notation could misrepresent what had been assessed and undermine the certificate’s value. The judgment noted that other accommodations, such as extra time, may not require an annotation because they do not alter assessment of a fundamental skill.
The court rejected the claim that the examination system was inherently discriminatory, noting evidence that several accommodations were available. It held that the exemption and related annotation were reasonable in the circumstances, and that the Circuit Court judge had not erred in law on the grounds advanced. The appeal was dismissed. The court did not award the requested compensation or order a replacement certificate.