Ireland: Current Issues Arising In Equality Law

Last Updated: 2 June 2014
Article by Michael Doyle and Louise O'Byrne
Most Read Contributor in Ireland, October 2018

In this client briefing, we focus on two "hot topics" in the world of employment equality law, namely employment medicals and discrimination and flexible working requests.

Employment Medicals and Discrimination

Introduction

Many employers offer prospective employees a position subject to "satisfactory medical". Where the medical is not "satisfactory" an employer is faced with a difficult decision in respect of the candidate's future. Where a candidate is not offered a position in reliance on a medical, this could ultimately be deemed to amount to discrimination on the grounds of disability.

The Equality Tribunal and Labour Court have recently considered the appropriateness of pre-employment medicals in the employment arena as outlined below. It should be noted that pre-employment medicals are often very important in the broader employment context, particularly where an employer proposes to engage an employee in a safety critical role. They also provide insight to enable an employer design safe systems of work and/or to assist in identifying risks as they relate to a particular employee. These medicals might also be of assistance in ultimately defending personal injury proceedings i.e. where an employee has a prior medical history of depression and anxiety, disclosure of this information at the outset of the employment relationship would be very relevant to the defence of a subsequent claim that an employee has been injured due to work related stress.

The Law

Section 8 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 to 2012 (the "Employment Equality Acts") provides that an employer shall not discriminate against an employee in relation to access to employment. Where a recruitment process is challenged on the basis of it being discriminatory (on any ground) it is well established that the Equality Tribunal will not look behind an employer's decision unless there is clear evidence of unfairness in the selection process or manifest irrationality in the result.

Generally speaking, when a prospective employee is requested to attend a pre-employment medical an offer of employment has been made. The challenge will therefore not be on recruitment per se but on the decision to withdraw the offer in reliance on an unsatisfactory medical. Disability is very broadly interpreted by the Equality Tribunal and, as such, it is highly likely that any decision to withdraw an offer of employment on medical grounds will give rise to a claim for disability discrimination. Section 16 of the Employment Equality Acts places an obligation on employers to provide reasonable accommodation to disabled employees to facilitate the performance of their duties. The concept of reasonable accommodation allows for a disabled person to be treated in a more favourable manner than a person that does not suffer from a disability. It recognises that special assistance is required to allow persons with disabilities to have access to employment and compete within the workplace.

Section 16 of the Employment Equality Acts can provide a complete defence to a claim for discrimination on the disability ground if it can be shown that an employer, in the context of a pre-employment medical, formed a bona fide belief that the employee or prospective employee was not fully capable of performing the duties for which he or she has been employed or it is proposed that he or she will be employed. It is clear that the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation can only be satisfied where some sort of assessment has been undertaken to determine whether reasonable accommodation can be provided at all.

Case Law

In Ms X v An Electronic Component Company [DEC-E2006-042], the Equality Tribunal found that the use of pre-employment medicals or questionnaires is not unlawful per se. The Equality Tribunal in this case warned that employers need to exercise caution when using information obtained in such assessments so as not to fall foul of employment equality legislation and held that the reasonable accommodation duty equally applies in the case of recently recruited employees. In this case, the employee was dismissed following three days of employment when, during a manual handling course, the employee disclosed that she had difficulty sitting up straight.

The Equality Officer found that, by taking the word of the manual handling trainer over the employee in the absence of any medical opinion, the employer had imputed a disability to the employee. The Equality Officer found that when faced with conflicting information about a "back problem", the employer acted in an impetuous manner and the Equality Officer was critical of the employer's failure to seek a medical opinion. The employer was found to have discriminated on the grounds of disability and the employee was awarded compensation of €15,000.

In An Applicant v A County Council [DEC-2010-054], the applicant claimed that she was discriminated against by a County Council on the grounds of disability in relation to access to employment.

Following a selection process she was placed eighth on a panel for a permanent clerical officer position. She was then offered a 22-week temporary maternity cover subject to a satisfactory medical report. The medical report returned confirmed that the applicant had a "...chronic back problem. Standing for long periods or lifting would cause her difficulties. I would suggest a six month trial." The final part of the medical report asked: "Are there any circumstances connected with the health of the candidate which, in your opinion tend to disqualify him/her from performing the duties efficiently and regularly?" to which the doctor replied "I suspect there may be". On the basis of this medical report, the County Council withdrew the offer of temporary employment and advised the applicant it had done so based on the medical evidence received.

The applicant remained on the panel for a permanent position. In light of the medical report received, the County Council sent the applicant to an occupational health consultant for a more detailed assessment. The resulting medical report stated:

"In my opinion currently (the applicant) is medically fit for this work. I would advise the Council of course that the workstation would need to conform to appropriate guidelines and she would need to mobilise on a regular basis, I would estimate some degree of mobilisation every 20 minutes would be reasonable. With respect to her abilities to provide regular and effective service I have to state with reservation the prognosis is guarded ... On the balance of probability I suspect that (the applicant) is likely in the future to have periods of absence from work as a consequence of an exacerbation of her back pain."

The County Council submitted that there would have been no problem in providing reasonable accommodation in relation to the workstation and mobilisation. However, it was concerned with the applicant's ability to carry out her duties on an ongoing basis. The Council informed the applicant that, based on the specialist medical report, it would not be proceeding to appoint her to a permanent post. The applicant contended that the decisions made by the Council to withdraw the offers of employment that had been made to her were discriminatory on the grounds of her disability.

The Equality Officer concluded that the decision to withdraw the offer of the temporary position was based on an incorrect assessment of the medical evidence received. Despite being medically assessed as capable for the temporary position the offer was withdrawn; this amounted to discrimination arising from her disability.

The Equality Officer accepted that the second medical report raised concerns for the Council about the applicant's condition in the future but given the uncertainty of the language in the report, the Equality Officer did not accept that the Council had sufficient information to withdraw the offer of employment based on the contents of the report alone. The Equality Officer stated that the Council should have consulted with the applicant and referred her to a specialist.

The Equality Officer awarded the applicant €12,000 for the discriminatory treatment suffered, and ordered that the applicant be considered for the next available clerical officer position.

In A Complainant v A Worker [2005] E.L.R 159, it was established by the Equality Tribunal that the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation also applies to prospective employees.

The prospective employee in this case was called to interview at one day's notice and indicated that he would attend. The employee had a hearing difficulty and was unable to get a sign language interpreter at such short notice. The employee suggested that the interview take place with the aid of a computer but this was rejected by the prospective employer as the interviewer was allegedly not computer literate. The employer insisted that the interview could only take place on this particular day. The interview never took place. The prospective employee brought a claim of disability discrimination against the prospective employer. In its defence, the prospective employer asserted that the prospective employee had been treated no differently than the other interviewees, in that they were all required to attend on that particular day.

The Equality Officer held that had a reasonable deferment of the interview been granted, the prospective employee could have attended. In the circumstances, the Equality Officer was satisfied that the refusal to defer the interview constituted less favourable treatment and a prima facie case of discrimination on the disability ground was made out. The Equality Officer also examined whether granting the prospective employee's request to conduct the interview with the aid of a computer represented a disproportionate burden on the prospective employer, the Equality Officer ruled that this did not represent a disproportionate burden as the prospective employer could have conducted the interview with the aid of basic technology such as Microsoft Word and by ensuring the availability of a person with typing abilities.

The prospective employee was awarded compensation of €8,000 for the effects of the discrimination.

Conclusion

The practice of requiring prospective employees or new hires to attend for a medical assessment is well established. Indeed, there are very good reasons for this practice. That said, where the outcome of such an assessment gives rise to a cause for concern, an employer or perspective employer would be well advised not to take action prematurely and withdraw the offer of employment or terminate the employee's employment. Instead the employer should pay due regard to its obligations under the Employment Equality Acts and consider whether reasonable accommodations can be made available to the employee or perspective employee. If it is concluded that they cannot, and the employer has medical evidence in support of this conclusion, the employer is in far better position to inform the employee or prospective employee of the bad news and indeed, defend any subsequent discrimination litigation that might ensue.

Flexible Working Requests – Are you handling them correctly?

It is an unfortunate but accepted fact of life that it can be difficult for working parents to juggle successful careers and family responsibilities. As women still primarily provide primary care for children, it is frequently women who seek part-time or family-friendly work arrangements from their employer in order to accommodate their family commitments. Employees with caring responsibilities are understandably not in a position to adapt their working conditions and provide the flexibility at short notice that employees without such commitments are. However, employers that operate inflexible working environments need to be alive to the discrimination issues that can arise from such inflexibility.

What rights do employees currently have to flexible working arrangements?

Employees do not currently have a statutory entitlement to flexible working arrangements. By flexible working arrangements, we mean a right to part time work, job sharing and/or flexible attendance. Therefore, in the absence of a published policy on flexible working arrangements, many employees' ability to avail of flexible working arrangements depends on the whim of their employer. What many employers do not seem to realise is that, although they are not obliged to provide flexible working arrangements, they are obliged to provide or refuse them in a non-discriminatory manner.

UK Position

In the UK employees with children under age 17, or who are carers of an adult, have a statutory right to request flexible working arrangements provided they have over 26 weeks continuous service at the date of their request. This right to request flexible working arrangements is soon to be extended to all employees with 26 weeks continuous service, regardless of whether they have children or caring responsibilities. Furthermore, the formal statutory framework for handling requests is also to be removed and replaced with a more flexible requirement that employers instead consider requests in a "reasonable" manner and time frame.

The Indirect Discrimination Risk

There is huge scope for indirect discrimination to arise in the handling of flexible working requests. Indirect discrimination takes place when an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice puts persons of a particular protected class at a particular disadvantage in respect of any matter other than remuneration compared with other employees of their employer. In contrast to direct discrimination, indirect discrimination is permissible where the provision, criterion or practice in question is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

Many employers are surprised to learn that refusing to accommodate a woman returning from maternity leave who wishes to work on a part-time basis could constitute indirect discrimination on the grounds of family status and gender. While an employee in those circumstances has no legal right to reduced working hours or to a job share arrangement, the Equality Tribunal and Labour Court have tended to require employers who have considered and refused such requests to demonstrate that they have acted reasonably in doing so.

In order to defend claims of indirect discrimination, employers must ensure they can "objectively justify" refusals by:

  • establishing a legitimate business reason for the refusal (for example, clients demanding that staff be available at certain times); and
  • demonstrating the refusal is proportionate in light of this business reason (for example, it is not reasonably feasible to meet this demand in another way, such as by way of a job share).

Case law

In Tesco v Walsh [DEE062], an employee sought part-time work on her return from maternity leave just before the summer. This request was refused by her employer over the summer months due to staff shortages and summer holidays. She was however afforded every Friday or Saturday off during the summer and was eventually transitioned to part-time work some months after she had returned to work. The employee claimed that she had been discriminated against on the grounds of gender in not being permitted to return to part-time employment on her return from maternity leave. The Labour Court held that her employer had acted reasonably in considering her request having regard to its business needs and found no evidence of discrimination on the grounds of gender.

In Tesco v Swift [EDA0514] an employee sought part-time working arrangements on her return from maternity leave. In particular she sought to work a 15 hour week over Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Her employer refused to accommodate her request but did offer alternative working hours, namely 18 hours over the same three days. The employee was nonetheless disgruntled and brought a claim of gender discrimination against her employer. The Labour Court held that an employer is obliged to give reasonable consideration to flexible working requests but was satisfied that in this case, the employer had discharged this burden. The revised hours offered by the employer were in line with an agreement with the trade union of which the employee was a member, the hours of work were on the same days of the week she had requested and her employer had demonstrated an established practice of accommodating female employees' flexible working requests in the past.

What about requiring employees to work on a full-time basis?

In Inoue v NBK Designs [2003] E.L.R. 98, the employee, who was a single parent, was a part-time secretary/personal assistant who had a job sharing position with another employee due to her family responsibilities. The employer decided to merge the two posts, creating a full-time position. The employee was asked to take on this role but was unable to do so having regard to her family responsibilities. As a result, she was dismissed. The Labour Court accepted that women who have children and are single, separated or divorced find it more difficult to work full-time than fathers who are single, separated or divorced and for that reason, the Court found prima facie evidence of indirect discrimination on the grounds of gender.

The Court rejected the objective justification advanced by the employer to the effect that there would be an improvement in the efficiency of the administrative work performed by the two job-sharers in the work being performed by one of them. The Court did not accept that it was essential for the shared post to be a full-time post occupied by one individual. The fact that the Labour Court went as far as considering whether or not it was "essential" for the post to be a full-time post demonstrates the high onus on an employer to objectively justify the requirement for a post to be a full-time one only.

Code of Practice on Access to Part-Time Working

The Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice on Access to Part-Time Working) S.I. No. 8 of 2006 provides, among other things, that employers should have in place a policy that specifies how part-time work requests are handled. The Code of Practice, which is a non-binding statutory code, is taken account of by the Equality Tribunal and Labour Court in proceedings before those fora.

The Code of Practice states that an employers part-time working policy should:

  • require an employee to submit an application that sets out the reason for their request;
  • specify the decision making time frame and detail the factors that will be taken into account in considering such requests;
  • require the employer to issue a reasoned written decision on the application; and
  • provide for a right of appeal against the decision made.

The Code of Practice acknowledges that employers will not be in a position to accede to all part-time working requests and states that an employer would be justified in refusing a request if granting it would have an adverse effect on the operation of the employer's business or would lead to staffing difficulties.

In Morgan v Bank of Ireland [2008 19 E.L.R. 339], an employee sought part-time working arrangements as she was planning an overseas adoption. Her application was approved subject to operational requirements. However, she was ultimately only offered a job share arrangement some years later as her employer asserted no suitable vacancy arose in the meantime. The Equality Officer referred to the Code of Practice and noted that while the employer did have a flexible working policy in place, it did not conform with the requirements of the Code of Practice. The Equality Officer, in addition to finding in favour of the employee, directed the employer to implement a procedure for processing part-time working applications that was in accordance with the Code of Practice.

This case serves as a salutary warning to employers of the importance of ensuring not only that they have a flexible working policy in place, but one that complies fully with the provisions of the Code of Practice.

How should employers handle flexible working requests?

Firstly, employers should ensure they have in place a policy that details how a flexible working request will be processed. This policy should comply with the Code of Practice and be clearly communicated to all staff. Once a request is received, it should be processed in accordance with the policy and most importantly, be given reasonable consideration by the employer. If the request is granted, any consequential changes to terms and conditions of employment should be documented and signed by both parties. If the request is to be refused, the employer must be able to objectively justify that refusal. The size and resources of the employer will be relevant in determining whether the objective justification advanced stands up to scrutiny.

This article contains a general summary of developments and is not a complete or definitive statement of the law. Specific legal advice should be obtained where appropriate.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions