ADJ-00025513

Anonymised

A Care Worker

A Disability Support Service 

Representatives

Andrea Cleere SIPTU

Muireann McEnery Ibec

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 77 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998

CA-00032423-001

22/11/2019

The Complainant contends that she was discriminated against on the grounds of disability when the Respondent required her to move from a work location where she had reasonable accommodation to allow her to carry out her duties to one where she could not.  The complaint is that the Respondent failed to provide her with such reasonable accommodation and that she was at a loss of earnings when she was on sick leave for a period of some months without pay.

The complainant has suffered from several medical issues which she has successfully managed over a number of years and has always worked hard to regain good health to return to work as she is a committed and loyal employee of the Organisation.

The complainant worked in a location known as “C” whereby reasonable accommodation was provided to her regarding working night shift.  The complainant has a disability regarding bilateral deafness, the complainant wears a hearing device which must be detached while sleeping.  This means the complainant cannot work sleepovers unless another staff is present as there is a risk that she would be unable to hear a service user if they were to call for assistance during the night.

The complainant suffered a fractured spine in 2017 while carrying out domestic work in her home, she recovered well and returned to work in C and the reasonable accommodation of not working nights continued.

The complainant suffered a fractured hip in March 2018, following a DEXA scan which gave a diagnosis of osteoporosis the complainant underwent a full hip replacement and again recovered and returned to work in May 2018.

In February 2019 the complainant received a phone call from the Person in Charge (PIC) who advised that she was being moved, when the complainant objected and queried why, the PIC advised it was because she could not work nights.

Despite her objection the complainant was moved to a location called “V”, the service users in this particular location required a high level of physical support which required the usage of heavy wheelchairs, large hoists etc.  

The physical demands of V caused significant difficulty for the complainant who began to suffer with her back for the first time since her injury in 2017.  She attended her GP who deemed she was unfit for work due to back pain from 5th April 2019.

The complainant attended Medmark on the 23rd April 2019 who deemed that she was fit to return to work.  The complainant contacted local HR to advise that Medmark had deemed her fit to return to work however local HR advised that she should continue to send in her GP certs until Management have received the report.

The complainant sought an update through her union shop steward who emailed Human Resources on 9th May 2019 regarding the matter.  The response received was that Management had received the report on the 29th April 2019 and thought the complainant was back at work.  

The Medmark report of 23rd April 2019 states the following under Restrictions / Accommodations (appendix 3)

•      I recommend a risk assessment of the role is carried out in order to ensure that it is a safe role  

•      I recommend that [The Complainant] attends an up-to-date Manual Handling training course and adheres to the regulations at all times  

•      In view of [The Complainant’s} health issues in recent years, a move to a less physically challenging position may be beneficial to her general wellbeing going forward if this can be accommodated. 

On 10th May 2019 the complainant formally wrote to the Human Resources Manager requesting that reasonable accommodation be provided to her in line with the Doctors recommendation from Occupational Health.  Supporting this request was also correspondence from her own GP.

The complainant met with Management on the 17th September 2019 to discuss her return to work, the meeting was devastating for the complainant as she was advised by Management that there was no role for her within the service.  

The complainant was desperate to return to work to the job she enjoyed doing for 21 years.  In an effort to exhaust every avenue available to her she raised a grievance with management.  She did not have a grievance meeting. 

It was only at this juncture some five months later that the risk assessment was carried on 28th September 2019 after the complainant lodged a formal grievance. 

The complainant did not participate in this exercise and nor was she requested to. 

The complainant received correspondence dated 15th October 2019 from the Human Resource Manager advising that the respondent were engaging an independent company namely LCE Workplace Safety to have a discussion with a Health and Safety Consultant and that they would be in contact once this happened.

Representations were made to the Human Resource Manager on behalf of the complainant seeking an update by way of email on 6th November 2019 and advising that due to the length of time this issue had been ongoing there was no choice but to refer the matter to the Workplace Relations Commission, a response was received on the 11th November 2019 advising that the respondent was waiting on dates.  A case was referred to the WRC on the 22nd November 2019.  Further representations were made seeking an urgent update 28th November 2019, a response advised that the review was still ongoing.

The report was eventually received on 6th January 2020 and the complainant and her representative met with the respondent 8th January 2020  to discuss the complainants return work.  Following a review by Medmark on 15th January 2020 the complainant was returned to work in February 2020 in another location and has remained at work throughout the whole of the Corona Virus Pandemic with the exception of one absence due to a chest infection.

 The complainant was treated appallingly by her employer throughout 2019, she was working well in a location where reasonable accommodation had been provided regarding sleepovers.  The respondent has failed to provide reasonable or rationale grounds for why they deviated from this arrangement.

Despite requests from Occupational Health and the complainants General Practitioner the respondent did not facilitate this reasonable accommodation until some 9 months later.

During a meeting on 17th September 2019 the complainant was told by the respondent that no positions existed in the organisation for her, it is worth noting that at this point the respondent had not yet completed the risk assessment requested by Occupational Health on 23rd April 2019 even though HR confirmed in an email to the Shop Steward on 9th May 2019 that one had been carried out.

The risk assessment requested by Occupational Health was not carried until some five months later and this only occurred after a formal grievance was lodged.

Case law cited in support of the argument in relation to this case:

Nano Nagle School, Appellant, v. Marie Daly, Respondent,  [2018] IECA 11

A Caretaker, v. A Property Management Company ADJ-00006318

A Development Manager, v. A Technology Company ADJ-00023345

Marie O’Shea v Health Service Executive ADJ-00024740

The complainant had a reasonable accommodation in place with the respondent who removed the provision with any consideration and caused much distress and financial loss to the complainant. 

The Claimant was asked by her Clinical Nurse Manager 2 (CNM2) in January 2019 to move to location V from location C. In line with changing staffing needs, staff can be moved at any time to cover staff absence. The Respondent felt that location V was the ideal location to accommodate the Claimant’s needs/ restrictions and there was a significant staffing need there which also needed to be filled.  The Claimant met with the Service Manager in her office on 18th February 2019 to discuss the move. The Manager explained that the move was both to alleviate staff shortages in the location along with accommodating the Claimant’s needs around sleepovers as she would not be required to do sleepovers in the new location.   The Claimant voiced concerns about why she was being moved when others who had been longer in C were not being asked to move.  It was explained to her that it was not a “first in first out policy” and staff can all be moved at any time in accordance with the mobility clause in their contracts. The Claimant raised concerns about her hearing aids and the Manager assured her that location V was very low risk and that the possibility of her hearing aids being removed by a service user was unlikely due to the high level of their physical dependency. The Claimant commenced working in location V on 11th March 2019.

On 31st March 2019 the Claimant wrote to the CNM2 in location V stating that the work was too physically challenging for her.  A meeting was arranged by her CNM2 for 5th April 2019. 

 As outlined in the minutes of that meeting, the following issues were discussed:

•      The Claimant stated that she was finding it tough on her back and so the CNM2 advised her to attend her GP if she was having issues as the Claimant was already deemed fit for work with no new restrictions following her previous absence.

•      The CNM2 also stated that the Claimant actually had more supports in location V  in terms of additional staff on-site than in a community setting.  The Claimant acknowledged this.

•      The other health issues as referred to by the Claimant in her letter were also discussed and the CNM2 reminded her that the Service had honoured the restrictions that were already in place in terms of no sleepovers, low risk of challenging behaviour and good practice in manual handling. These are all features of location V. The Claimant agreed. 

•      The Claimant also agreed to go to her GP but stated that she was last deemed fit for a return to location C. The CNM2 pointed out to the Claimant that Medmark do not deem people fit for work based on particular work locations. Staff are deemed fit based on their ability to carry out their role as a Care Staff. The CNM2 noted that the Claimant appeared accepting of this. 

The Claimant was then absent from work from 8th April 2019 until 26th January 2020. The reasons cited on the medical certs varied as follows;

•      8th April 2019 to 6th May 2019 – Back Pain

•      13th May 2019 to 26th January 2020- the certs stated stress, unfit for work, unable to attend work, acute stress. 

The Claimant was referred to Medmark on 23rd April 2019 and again on 29th May 2019.

These reports recommended a move to a less physically demanding role if it could be accommodated and that a risk assessment be carried out for the role (April Report). That she was “not medically fit for frequent bending, lifting, pushing/ pulling as it is likely that such actions will provoke musculoskeletal symptoms going forward” (May Report)

Further to this recommendation an internal risk assessment was completed on 3rd May 2019. The CNM2 spoke to the Claimant via phone on 9th May 2019. He advised her that the risk assessment as recommended by Medmark was done and he would go through it on her return from sick leave. 

The Claimant queried the recommended move to a less physically challenging location and the CNM2 advised that this would be looked at but that the medical report had stated that it “may” be beneficial to her “if” it can be accommodated. It was not stipulated as medically necessary in order for her to return to work.

The CNM2 also advised the Claimant that in the interim she would continue to be based in location V as she had been deemed fit for work. The CNM2 also raised with the Claimant that although she was certified unfit until 6th May 2019 HR had noticed that there was tippex on her cert and that it didn’t include a fit to return date which was required.

The Claimant was given her roster and the Respondent waited to receive a fit to work cert however this was never received and a GP cert citing stress was submitted instead.

On 14th May 2019 a letter from HR Manager was sent to the Claimant requesting an informal meeting on 21st May 2019 to discuss work concerns namely the challenges in locating a suitable house for the Claimant.

 On 11th July 2019 another letter from HR Manager was sent to the Claimant requesting a second informal meeting on 18th July 2019 to discuss work concerns. An update was given in relation to the internal risk assessment. The Claimant was accompanied at both meetings by two local SIPTU reps. 

Internal assessment:

In early July 2019 each CNM2 was asked to assess their own individual areas for suitability of placement of the Claimant. A suitable location could not be found following which the Service Manager decided to carry out a full review of the whole Service. This further assessment reviewed each work location in taking the Claimant’s medical restrictions into account.  A meeting was held with the Claimant on 27th August 2019 and again on 17th September 2019, outlining to the Claimant that a review of each work location had begun and it was taking some time given the size. An email was sent to the local SIPTU representatives confirming this.

 Grievance Letter:

The Claimant lodged a grievance with the Service Manager on 18th Sept 2019 and a response was given on 24th Sept 2019.

The Response stated “As outlined at our meeting on 17th September, the needs of the residents in [C] have changed and the increase in mobility issues have led to more manual handling requirements of staff, which you have not been deemed fit to carry out.”

The Claimant stated in her grievance letter that she was fit for work from 29th May 2019 and that she was willing to work in the areas she has worked in previously. This conflicted with the Medmark report which did not deem her fit stating “In my opinion [the claimant] is not medically fit to return to work without restrictions and to the full duties of her role as a care staff worker.” These restrictions included no sleepovers, no challenging behaviour houses and no frequent bending, lifting, pushing or pulling.

The Claimant also stated that the Respondent was not prepared to allow her to work in these areas again this is incorrect, the Respondent was simply adhering to the restrictions as outlined in the Medmark report.

The Claimant stated that the Respondent had asserted that there was no suitable work location for her. Again, this is incorrect, what was in fact stated was that the Respondent was having difficulty in ensuring a safe work environment as outlined by Medmark, therefore they were enlisting the expertise of an independent Occupational Health & Safety professional to review and offer recommendations.

The Claimant also alleged that she was being forced to leave the Service. This was not the case. The Service Manager reminded the Claimant that at the meeting on 17th September 2019, she had stated that she would welcome the Claimant back as soon as possible, once a safe working environment could be provided.

The Service Manager offered to meet with the Claimant to discuss further but no response was received to this letter.

Minutes of meetings:

On 18th September 2019 the Claimant requested the minutes of the meetings of 27th August

2019 and 17th September 2019. These were sent to her on 24th Sept 2019.

External assessment:

As already mentioned above because the internal review did not identify a suitable and safe work location for the Claimant the Respondent sought an external company to carry out this workplace assessment.  “L Consulting Company” were identified and a quote sought on 16th October 2019.

Approval was requested on 22nd Oct 2019 from the HR Director. This was brought forward to the next scheduled executive meeting and approval was given on 7th November 2019.

“L Consulting” were formally engaged on 11th November 2019 and the process began.

The final report was received from them on 18th December 2019 and this report was sent to

SIPTU on 6th January 2020 following the Christmas break. The report stated:

There is no single unit at present which could be deemed to be suitable for an employee who is predisposed to musculoskeletal ill health and who has been medically assessed as unsuitable to frequent lifting, pushing, pulling, sleepovers or exposed to challenging behaviours

A meeting was held with the Claimant and her SIPTU representative on 7th January 2020.

Quite remarkably the Claimant outlined that as she had had some time off work and her back was rested she no longer had a back issue or manual handling restrictions.

The HR manager and the Service Manager were taken aback given the long-term recommendation from Medmark in previous reports without any conflicting GP reports.

The HR Manager advised that a new Medmark assessment would be required and this was subsequently arranged.

Medmark felt there was a need to consult with the Claimant’s GP given the change in her symptoms. The Medmark report was received on 23rd Jan 2020. It stated there were no longer any manual handling restrictions. SIPTU was advised and a copy sent to the Claimant.

The removal of these restrictions opened up many location options for the Claimant while still maintaining the original restriction of no sleepovers from the 2015 Medmark report. 

The Claimant then returned to work on 27th Jan 2020 and there have been no issues since.

Claimant’s Payment details:

•      No Pay in May 2019 for 28 hours (no submission of medical certificate) 

•      No pay from 17/06/2019 to 26/01/2020 – exhausted sick leave

•      Back on full pay from 27/01/2020 

The Respondent has followed all medical advice and recommendations at all times. Given the significant level of restrictions placed on the Claimant it became increasingly difficult to find a suitable work location as outlined in detail above.

These extensive restrictions also resulted in the engagement of external consultants as the internal assessment yielded no potential position for the Claimant. This external assessment involved a large body of work as every unit and house within the Respondent’s Centres in North Tipperary and South Offaly had to be assessed. The external assessment came to the same conclusion as the internal assessment; that there was no single unit which would not require some level of manual handling. 

However, the new development in January 2020 outlining that the Claimant no longer had a back issue which was subsequently verified medically, enabled the Respondent to place the Claimant in a suitable work location, bearing in mind the other remaining restriction of no sleepovers. This resulted in the Claimant’s return to work in January 2020.

 The Respondent would like to note that all employee contracts have a mobility clause, allowing for a move to any new location at any time, regardless of any medical conditions.   

The Respondent categorically refutes any assertions of discriminatory treatment / failure to provide reasonable accommodation. 

The Respondent has in fact scrupulously followed all medical recommendations and where possible made reasonable accommodations in line with internal and external assessments and recommendations. 

The essence of this complaint is that the Complainant was denied the opportunity of returning to work from sick leave by the Respondent’s failure to provide her with reasonable accommodation in order for her to work in a location suitable for her needs in relation to her disability.

There is no dispute that the Complainant suffers a disability.  The Respondent has maintained that it has provided the Complainant with reasonable accommodation in respect of the medical reports which have outlined her needs particularly in respect of ‘sleepovers’.

The applicable law

Section 6 (1) of the Act states:

“(1) For the purposes of this Act and without prejudice to its provisions relating to discrimination occurring in particular circumstances discrimination shall be taken to occur where—

(a) a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which—

(i) exists,

(ii) existed but no longer exists,     

(iii) may exist in the future, or

(iv) is imputed to the person concerned..

Section 6 (2) (g) states:

(2)  As between any 2 persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act are –

(g)   that one is a person with a disability and the other either is not or is a person with a different disability (in this Act referred to as “the disability ground”).

Prima facie case

In the first case, I will examine the issue of whether the Complainant has established a prima facie case.

Section 85A of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2011 sets out the burden of proof as follows:

“(1) Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a Complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to her or her, it is for the Respondent to prove the contrary.”

Put simply, the onus in the first instance lies with the Complainant to establish the primary facts from which it may be inferred that discrimination has occurred.  If these facts are established substantiated by evidence, the burden of proof then shifts to the Respondent to prove that discrimination did not occur.

The extent of evidential burden has been established by the Labour Court in The Southern Health Board v Dr Teresa Mitchell DEE 011 where the Court found that the Complainant must :

“establish facts from which it may be presumed that the principle of equal treatment has not been applied to them.  This indicates that a claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities the primary facts on which they rely in seeking to raise a presumption of unlawful discrimination.             It is only if these primary facts are established to the satisfaction of the Court, and they are regarded by the Court as being of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination, that the onus shifts to the respondent to prove that there was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment”.

In this instant case, it is accepted that the Complainant has suffered a disability requiring her to wear a hearing aid which must be taken out at night.  She has been certified as not being required to work nights/sleepovers and has been given reasonable accommodation in that for some years.  As per the Respondent’s own evidence, the Complainant also had back and hip injuries which were not work related.  The problem arose when the Complainant was required to change location.  Her evidence to the hearing was that the new location “V” proved to have a detrimental affect on her health in the form of back trouble recurring and stress on her for pulling and lifting.  This led to a period where she went on sick leave, and ultimately when her sick leave pay expired, to a considerable loss of earnings.  The question arises why did the Respondent require the Complainant to move location in the first place?  Evidence given by the Complainant was that when she was requested to change location, she was told it was because she could not work nights.  Evidence given by the Respondent was that staff moves can occur for various reasons.  In relation to the Complainant, it was stated by the Manager of the service that a ‘chain of events’ led to the Complainant being moved.  It was not clarified what the particular chain of events were.  No evidence was presented to me that any other staff member was requested to move out of location C at that time. 

On the question of a comparator, in cases involving less favourable treatment, a comparator can be actual or hypothetical. (Determination EDA1310, Henry Denny v Rohan, in which the Labour Court followed the decision of the House of Lords to that effect in Shamoon v Chief Constable of the RUC [2003] IRLR 258). A hypothetical comparator can be constructed by asking why the complainant was treated as she was. If the treatment complained of was because of a protected characteristic, a hypothetical comparator is a person who does not have that characteristic. The Complainant in this case was deprived of the opportunity to continue in employment because of her disability. An appropriate comparator could be a person in a similar role who does not have a disability or a person who has a different disability. In this case no named comparator with a different disability was put forward for consideration and therefore it follows that the appropriate comparator in this case is a person in a similar role who does not have a disability.  It is well settled that discrimination can arise where similar situations are treated differently or where different situations are treated similarly (see the decision of the Labour Court in Campbell Catering v Rasaq [2004] ELR 310). By application of that principle, at the material time a hypothetical comparator without a disability was required to undertake a range of duties that were fully within their physical capacity. In contrast, in requiring the Complainant to undertake the same range of duties, she was required to undertake duties beyond her physical capacity as a condition of continuing in employment. It is noted that the Respondent submitted that it followed the medical requests for the Complainant not to work ‘sleepovers’.  However, this was a narrow interpretation of this aspect of the Complainant’s disability, particularly in light of the difficulties which presented shortly after her move to location V and in light of the known medical situation of the Complainant.    It follows that in that respect she was treated differently and less favourably because of her disability.  I find that the Complainant has established a prima facie case.  I now turn to the issue of reasonable accommodation.

Reasonable Accommodation   

Section 16 of the Act provides:

“(1) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as requiring any person to recruit or promote an individual to a position, to retain an individual in a position, or to provide training or experience to an individual in relation to a position, if the individual - (b) is not (or, as the case may be, is no longer) fully competent and available to undertake, and fully capable of undertaking, the duties attached to that position, having regard to the conditions under which those duties are, or may be required to be, performed. ...

(3)(a) For the purposes of this Act a person who has a disability is fully competent to undertake, and fully capable of undertaking, any duties if the person would be so fully competent and capable on reasonable accommodation (in this subsection referred to as “appropriate measures”) being provided by the person’s employer. (b) The employer shall take appropriate measures where needed in a particular case to enable a person who has a disability - (i) to have access to employment, (ii) to participate or advance in employment, or (iii) to undergo training unless the measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer. (c) In determining whether the measures would impose such a burden account shall be taken, in particular, of - (i) the financial and other costs entailed, (ii) the scale and financial resources of the employer’s business, and (iii) the possibility of obtaining public funding or other assistance.

(4) In subsection (3) - “appropriate measures” in relation to a person with a disability - (a) means effective and practical measures, where needed in a particular case, to adapt the employer’s place of business to the disability concerned, (b) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a), includes the adaptation of premises and equipment, patterns of working time, distribution of tasks or the provision of training or integration resources, ...”

The Complainant moved at the Respondent’s request to location V and shortly after the move she complained that her back issue was exacerbated by the work.   The Respondent stated that she was referred to Medmark on 23rd April 2019 and again on 29th May 2019.  These reports recommended a move to a less physically demanding role if it could be accommodated and that a risk assessment be carried out for the role (April Report). That she was “not medically fit for frequent bending, lifting, pushing/ pulling as it is likely that such actions will provoke musculoskeletal symptoms going forward” (May Report).  Although there appears to be some dispute about the timing of the risk assessment, the Respondent’s evidence is that further to this recommendation an internal risk assessment was completed on 3rd May 2019. The CNM2 spoke to the Claimant via phone on 9th May 2019. He advised her that the risk assessment as recommended by Medmark was done and he would go through it on her return from sick leave.  I note the Complainant’s evidence that she did not receive that risk assessment until September 2019. The risk assessment was carried out internally, and the Complainant was not consulted in relation to it.  There was an element of ‘self-certification’ then in the manner in which the Respondent decided in effect that there was no location suitable for the Complainant’s ‘medical needs’.  The Complainant was greatly upset when told this at the September meeting. 

In Irish Prison Service v Robert Cunningham and the Labour Court [2021] IECA19, Mr Justice Barr held that there had been a “paradigm shift” in the way disability has to be viewed in Irish and European law, with laws providing rights “of real substance” to persons with disabilities who wish to enter or remain in work.  The UN Convention on Rights of People with Disabilities was relevant to the correct interpretation of the 1998 Act.  Mr Justice Barr also held that an employer is not required to create a job for a person with a disability or provide measures that are unduly burdensome.  However, justice requires the person with a disability be given a chance to make a case that they could perform the function required of them if reasonable accommodation were made for them.  The Respondent’s own submission outlines that the May 2019 Medmark report outlined that the Complainant was “not medically fit for frequent bending, lifting, pushing/ pulling as it is likely that such actions will provoke musculoskeletal symptoms going forward”.  The Respondent’s point made at the hearing that they were at a loss to understand how they could be accused of not providing reasonable accommodation (in respect of no requirement for sleepovers) is somewhat moot in light of this medical report.   The Respondent knew clearly at least since the May medical report that tasks such as frequent bending, lifting etc would be difficult for the Complainant.

Consultation

Since the decision of the Supreme Court in Nano Nagle School v Daly it is now clear that while there is no statutory duty on an employer to consult with the employee concerned, in the course of its consideration, the Supreme Court did point out that as a matter of prudence such consultation should occur.

In A Store -and- A Worker EDA1629the Labour Court found held:

“As was pointed out by this Court in Humphries v Westwood Fitness Club and in A Worker v An Employer [2005] ELR 159 a failure to adequately consider all available options on how a disabled person can be accommodated can amount to a failure to discharge the duty to provide reasonable accommodation.  Those cases also indicate that an enquiry in that regard can only be regarded as adequate if the affected employee is afforded an opportunity to influence the decision that the employer ultimately makes.”

It is noted that following the Complainant’s lodging of a grievance in relation to the matter, the Respondent engaged an outside Consultant to investigate where the Complainant could be placed.    The Complainant was not interviewed or consulted.  This was a flaw in the investigation, such that it prevented the Complainant from being given a chance to make her case.  I also note that in August and September 2019, the Respondent met with the Complainant and her shop steward. I also note significantly, that at the August meeting, the Complainant’s shop steward suggested that the Complainant be placed in the very location (T) in which she eventually ended up being placed.

Conclusion

Based on the reasoning, evidence and interpretation of the legislation as outlined above, I find that the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant under Section 6 (1) (a) and 6 (2) (g) of the Employment Equality Act 1998 as amended, through less favourable treatment of her and failure to provide reasonable accommodation.  Section 82 (1) of the Act provides for redress which may be appropriate in the circumstances of a particular case.  In this instant case, I conclude that the complaint is well founded and I require the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the sum of €30,000 for the effects of the of the acts of discrimination.

Discrimination on disability ground, reasonable accommodation, consultation with employee.