The Equality Authority welcomes the recent decision of the Labour Court in relation to an employee who was discriminated against due to a hearing impairment. The employee worked as a service receptionist. Shortly after the commencement, he was informed that there appeared to be a problem with communicating on the telephone. The claimant wore a hearing aid but stated that he had never before had any complaints or difficulties with telephone work. A headset was subsequently provided but further complaints were made about the claimant’s work performance. After a three month period, the employee maintained that the company terminated the employment.
The Labour Court concluded that the company dismissed the claimant on grounds of disability and did not do all that was reasonable to support the claimant to do the job. A specialised headset that could have eased the claimants hearing difficulties was not provided. Induction training to familiarise the new employee with the company was not provided. Under the Employment Equality Act, employers must do all that is reasonable to accommodate staff with disabilities, unless such a provision would give rise to a cost other than a nominal cost to the employer. The court did not accept the company’s argument that the cost of providing facilities or accommodating the claimant’s need was other than “nominal”. The claimant was awarded 3,000 euro.
Niall Crowley, Chief Executive Officer of the Equality Authority, stated that “this ruling is valuable in providing further clarification on the obligations of the employer to reasonably accommodate people with disabilities. It emphasises the provision of assistive technology but clarifies that reasonable accommodation goes beyond the provision of equipment by highlighting the contribution suitable induction training would have made to job performance”. He said that “this ruling highlights again that nominal cost is not a fixed sum but will be assessed on the basis of company size and turnover. This is important for the legislation’s positive impact on the situation of people with disabilities”.
“The disability ground currently accounts for over 19% of our case files under the Employment Equality Act. Disability issues need to become a higher priority for employers if this situation is to change. Cases such as this should assist and encourage employers to take necessary steps to change this situation”, he concluded.
ENDS