RECENT EQUALITY TRIBUNAL DECISIONS
Employment Equality Decisions Not Upheld
Employer Highlights 18 Specific Actions taken in Defence of Disability, Harassment and Victimisation claim
DEC- E2015-142: An Employee v An Employer
Grounds/Issues: Disability, Harassment and Victimisation
This dispute concerned a claim by an Employee that she was discriminated against by her Employer on the grounds of disability in relation to her conditions of employment, failure to be given reasonable accommodation for her disability, Harassment and Victimisation.
The Claimant started work for the Respondent in September 1992. The Claimant submitted that in December 2008 she was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. However, there was no noticeable deterioration in her situation until the latter part of the 2010/2011 academic year. The Claimant submitted that a new Principal (MMC) was appointed to the school in September 2011.
The Claimant stated that the timetable given to her in August 2012 for the 2012/2013 academic year was proof that her requests for reasonable accommodation had not been taken on board. She claimed that unsuitable tasks had been assigned to her. The Claimant submitted that her referral for an occupational health assessment in October 2012 by the school Principal was unbalanced and inaccurate. The Claimant also stated that when the report from the occupational health doctor acknowledged that practical cookery classes would pose a difficulty for her and stated instead of seeking options in reasonable accommodation from the Department of Education, the schools solution was that the principal and the deputy principal took turns to assist the Claimant in the practical cookery classes. The Claimant submitted that this arrangement was unworkable and was an affront to her dignity and left her feeling undermined. The Claimant further stated that, as a result of this unworkable solution, she was left with no option but to produce a sick cert to cover the practical classes.
The Claimant wrote to the principal on 24 January 2013 requesting a full review of her situation. According to the Claimant this request led to an increase in the aggressive behaviour towards her by the Principal which she evidenced as increased demands for meetings and a second referral to occupational health. She received a request from the Principal to meet with her to discuss the matter. However, the Claimant stated that, given the number of discussions she had with the principal in this regard, she refused this request to meet as she felt unsafe in the presence of the Principal during meetings in her office.
In response to the claims made by the Claimant, the Respondent denied in full every allegation made. The Respondent submitted that it took a series of 18 specific actions which were in direct response to dialogue and/or professional advice on the matter of providing appropriate measures and removing specific disadvantages raised by the Claimant. In this regard, the Respondent submitted that these actions were effective in meeting the Claimant's needs. The Respondent further submitted that the Principal and Chairperson of the Board of Management met with the Claimant and her trade union representative in June 2014 to discuss the timetable for the 2014/15 academic year as per the occupational health assessment report from May 2014. The Respondent submitted that the finalised timetable for 2014/15 was in line with the Claimant's expressed preferences. With regard to the Claimant's allegations of intimidation, harassment and discrimination as a result of her submission of the letter of 24 January 2013, the Respondent submitted that that the Claimant failed to provide any substantiated evidence in the course of her submissions to support the allegations been made in this regard.
In issuing its decision the Equality Tribunal found it was clear that in the handling of these issues when they arose, the Respondent acted in accordance with well-established policies and procedures in this regard and therefore the complaint failed.
The Employer in this instance successfully demonstrated that it took reasonable steps not to discriminate against the Employee on the basis of their disability and provided for reasonable accommodation measures, including obtaining of medical advice in order to support the Employee in her employment. The Tribunal equally found that the Employer to have acted appropriately following the failure of the Claimant to provide any substantiated evidence to support the allegations of intimidation, harassment and discrimination made.
Employment Equality Decision Not Upheld
Employee with Skin Disability not Discriminated against by her Employer
DEC-E2015-159: A Worker vs an Employee
Grounds/Issues: Disability, Reasonable accommodation
This dispute concerned a claim by Ms. A, that she was discriminated against by DS Beauty Salon on the grounds of disability contrary to section 6 of the Employment Equality Acts and in relation to conditions of employment in terms of section 8 of those Acts.
The Complainant stated that she commenced working for the Respondent’s beauty salon in July 2013. She maintained that she was totally honest and declared at interview that she had a skin disability – Psoriasis and Arthritis in the joints. She would only be available 20 hours per week. The working week actually worked extended considerably in excess of this. Relationships with the Respondent deteriorated markedly after the initial period of employment. A catalogue of complaints /disputes developed between the parties. This included allegations of unprofessional appearance, alleged till shortages, failure to maintain the workplace in a tidy and clean state, disputes over time off for funerals and multiple allegations of customer complaints. The Complainant resolutely denied all these allegations.
The Complainant brought an issue concerning her difficulties, arising from her disability, in moving a metal sheet, a foot plate, in a sunbed to the Respondent’s notice. It was necessary to move the foot plate to properly clean the appliance. She maintained that the Respondent failed to provide any proper accommodation as required under the Equality Act for a person with a disability in relation to this lifting issue.
The Respondent refuted all the allegations made by the Complainant. The Respondent maintained the Complainant did not make her aware of any disability at initial interview and it only became known when the issue of hospital appointments arose post recruitment. A considerable volume of customer complaints began to arise regarding the Complainant. The Respondent had to remind her on a number of occasions of the need to be professional in her appearance and to keep the Salon clean and tidy. The Respondent maintained that all these issues were discussed with the Complainant at meetings on the 10th September, 11th October, 20th November and the 11th December 2013. Minutes of the discussions were produced by the Respondent. The meetings, it was maintained, failed to effect any improvements in the relationship or work standards required by the Respondent. The metal tray at the base of the Sunbed was described as not being of any significant weight such that it would require special measures. The Respondent was always available, if required, to offer assistance with lifting.
At a meeting on the 28th January 2014 the Respondent informed the Complainant that she was being dismissed. It is alleged that a very heated and unpleasant exchange followed. The Respondent maintained that the Complaint was dismissed, having failed to improve following the meetings referred to above, for general incompetence, lack of proper customer care skills and unprofessional appearance.
In issuing its decision the Equality Tribunal found that the Respondent had acted fairly. It was clear the Respondent made such arrangements as were appropriate in terms of time off for medical appointments and offers of assistance with physical tasks, specifically moving the metal sheet in the tanning cubicle, if required. Accordingly, the Equality Tribunal found no sustainable basis for a successful claim and therefore the claim failed.
In determination of its decision, the Equality Tribunal further found that the Complainant failed to establish a case of discrimination or dismissal on the grounds of disability and acted appropriately to provide reasonable accommodation given the skin condition raised by the Complainant. Whilst not directly referred to by the Tribunal, the production of notes by the Respondent from the various meetings held with the Complainant, proved invaluable in order to demonstrate the decision to dismiss the Complainant was fair and reasonable given all of the circumstances and was not linked to the skin condition which the Complainant had disclosed to her Employer.
Employer Highlights 18 Specific Actions taken in Defence of Disability, Harassment and Victimisation claim
DEC- E2015-142: An Employee v An Employer
Grounds/Issues: Disability, Harassment and Victimisation
This dispute concerned a claim by an Employee that she was discriminated against by her Employer on the grounds of disability in relation to her conditions of employment, failure to be given reasonable accommodation for her disability, Harassment and Victimisation.
The Claimant started work for the Respondent in September 1992. The Claimant submitted that in December 2008 she was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. However, there was no noticeable deterioration in her situation until the latter part of the 2010/2011 academic year. The Claimant submitted that a new Principal (MMC) was appointed to the school in September 2011.
The Claimant stated that the timetable given to her in August 2012 for the 2012/2013 academic year was proof that her requests for reasonable accommodation had not been taken on board. She claimed that unsuitable tasks had been assigned to her. The Claimant submitted that her referral for an occupational health assessment in October 2012 by the school Principal was unbalanced and inaccurate. The Claimant also stated that when the report from the occupational health doctor acknowledged that practical cookery classes would pose a difficulty for her and stated instead of seeking options in reasonable accommodation from the Department of Education, the schools solution was that the principal and the deputy principal took turns to assist the Claimant in the practical cookery classes. The Claimant submitted that this arrangement was unworkable and was an affront to her dignity and left her feeling undermined. The Claimant further stated that, as a result of this unworkable solution, she was left with no option but to produce a sick cert to cover the practical classes.
The Claimant wrote to the principal on 24 January 2013 requesting a full review of her situation. According to the Claimant this request led to an increase in the aggressive behaviour towards her by the Principal which she evidenced as increased demands for meetings and a second referral to occupational health. She received a request from the Principal to meet with her to discuss the matter. However, the Claimant stated that, given the number of discussions she had with the principal in this regard, she refused this request to meet as she felt unsafe in the presence of the Principal during meetings in her office.
In response to the claims made by the Claimant, the Respondent denied in full every allegation made. The Respondent submitted that it took a series of 18 specific actions which were in direct response to dialogue and/or professional advice on the matter of providing appropriate measures and removing specific disadvantages raised by the Claimant. In this regard, the Respondent submitted that these actions were effective in meeting the Claimant's needs. The Respondent further submitted that the Principal and Chairperson of the Board of Management met with the Claimant and her trade union representative in June 2014 to discuss the timetable for the 2014/15 academic year as per the occupational health assessment report from May 2014. The Respondent submitted that the finalised timetable for 2014/15 was in line with the Claimant's expressed preferences. With regard to the Claimant's allegations of intimidation, harassment and discrimination as a result of her submission of the letter of 24 January 2013, the Respondent submitted that that the Claimant failed to provide any substantiated evidence in the course of her submissions to support the allegations been made in this regard.
In issuing its decision the Equality Tribunal found it was clear that in the handling of these issues when they arose, the Respondent acted in accordance with well-established policies and procedures in this regard and therefore the complaint failed.
The Employer in this instance successfully demonstrated that it took reasonable steps not to discriminate against the Employee on the basis of their disability and provided for reasonable accommodation measures, including obtaining of medical advice in order to support the Employee in her employment. The Tribunal equally found that the Employer to have acted appropriately following the failure of the Claimant to provide any substantiated evidence to support the allegations of intimidation, harassment and discrimination made.
Employment Equality Decision Not Upheld
Employee with Skin Disability not Discriminated against by her Employer
DEC-E2015-159: A Worker vs an Employee
Grounds/Issues: Disability, Reasonable accommodation
This dispute concerned a claim by Ms. A, that she was discriminated against by DS Beauty Salon on the grounds of disability contrary to section 6 of the Employment Equality Acts and in relation to conditions of employment in terms of section 8 of those Acts.
The Complainant stated that she commenced working for the Respondent’s beauty salon in July 2013. She maintained that she was totally honest and declared at interview that she had a skin disability – Psoriasis and Arthritis in the joints. She would only be available 20 hours per week. The working week actually worked extended considerably in excess of this. Relationships with the Respondent deteriorated markedly after the initial period of employment. A catalogue of complaints /disputes developed between the parties. This included allegations of unprofessional appearance, alleged till shortages, failure to maintain the workplace in a tidy and clean state, disputes over time off for funerals and multiple allegations of customer complaints. The Complainant resolutely denied all these allegations.
The Complainant brought an issue concerning her difficulties, arising from her disability, in moving a metal sheet, a foot plate, in a sunbed to the Respondent’s notice. It was necessary to move the foot plate to properly clean the appliance. She maintained that the Respondent failed to provide any proper accommodation as required under the Equality Act for a person with a disability in relation to this lifting issue.
The Respondent refuted all the allegations made by the Complainant. The Respondent maintained the Complainant did not make her aware of any disability at initial interview and it only became known when the issue of hospital appointments arose post recruitment. A considerable volume of customer complaints began to arise regarding the Complainant. The Respondent had to remind her on a number of occasions of the need to be professional in her appearance and to keep the Salon clean and tidy. The Respondent maintained that all these issues were discussed with the Complainant at meetings on the 10th September, 11th October, 20th November and the 11th December 2013. Minutes of the discussions were produced by the Respondent. The meetings, it was maintained, failed to effect any improvements in the relationship or work standards required by the Respondent. The metal tray at the base of the Sunbed was described as not being of any significant weight such that it would require special measures. The Respondent was always available, if required, to offer assistance with lifting.
At a meeting on the 28th January 2014 the Respondent informed the Complainant that she was being dismissed. It is alleged that a very heated and unpleasant exchange followed. The Respondent maintained that the Complaint was dismissed, having failed to improve following the meetings referred to above, for general incompetence, lack of proper customer care skills and unprofessional appearance.
In issuing its decision the Equality Tribunal found that the Respondent had acted fairly. It was clear the Respondent made such arrangements as were appropriate in terms of time off for medical appointments and offers of assistance with physical tasks, specifically moving the metal sheet in the tanning cubicle, if required. Accordingly, the Equality Tribunal found no sustainable basis for a successful claim and therefore the claim failed.
In determination of its decision, the Equality Tribunal further found that the Complainant failed to establish a case of discrimination or dismissal on the grounds of disability and acted appropriately to provide reasonable accommodation given the skin condition raised by the Complainant. Whilst not directly referred to by the Tribunal, the production of notes by the Respondent from the various meetings held with the Complainant, proved invaluable in order to demonstrate the decision to dismiss the Complainant was fair and reasonable given all of the circumstances and was not linked to the skin condition which the Complainant had disclosed to her Employer.
The Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2012, outlaw discrimination in work related areas such as pay, vocational training, access to employment, work experience and promotion. Cases involving harassment and victimisation at work are also covered by the Acts.
Employees or Ex-Employees who feel they have been discriminated against may refer a complaint to The Equality Tribunal through Workplace Relations Customer Services within 6 months of the occurrence of the act of discrimination. The Director of the Tribunal may extend this to a maximum of 12 months, if the complainant shows that there is reasonable cause to do so.
The nine grounds on which discrimination is outlawed by the Employment Equality Acts are as follows: Gender, Civil status, Family status, Sexual orientation, Religious belief, Age, Disability, Race colour, nationality, ethnic or national origins, Membership of the Traveller community.
Employees or Ex-Employees who feel they have been discriminated against may refer a complaint to The Equality Tribunal through Workplace Relations Customer Services within 6 months of the occurrence of the act of discrimination. The Director of the Tribunal may extend this to a maximum of 12 months, if the complainant shows that there is reasonable cause to do so.
The nine grounds on which discrimination is outlawed by the Employment Equality Acts are as follows: Gender, Civil status, Family status, Sexual orientation, Religious belief, Age, Disability, Race colour, nationality, ethnic or national origins, Membership of the Traveller community.
Adare Human Resource Management is one of Ireland’s leading Employment Law and Human Resource Management Consultancies. Our Equality and Diversity services include:
www.adarehrm.ie
- Equality and Diversity Audit and Healthcheck
- Review and Development of Policies and Procedures - Dignity at Work, Anti-Harassment and Sexual Harassment
- Management and Employee Training - Dignity at Work, Anti-Harassment and Sexual Harassment
- Investigations - independent investigations on behalf of Organisations in line with the relevant legislation and codes of practice.
www.adarehrm.ie
