Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mary  McGaley

Kerry County Council

Representatives

Siobhan McGowan, Alastair Purdy & Co

Eamonn Hunt , LGMA

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-00055568-001

15/03/2023

The Complaint Form was received by the Workplace Relations Commission on 15 March 2023.

The Complainant swore an Oath.

Mr Martin O’Donoghue, Director of Services swore an Affirmation, as did Mr Liam Quinlan, HR Manager.

The Complainant presented her evidence and the Respondent availed of the opportunity to cross examine her.

The Complainant withdrew the victimisation element of her complaint at the outset of the hearing and proceeded with her complaint of discrimination on the grounds of disability and failure to provide reasonable accommodation with the most recent date of discrimination being 15 March 2023.

Preliminary Objection

It was submitted that this was a case on going discrimination, a continuum of failures and discrimination by Respondent since 2016. It was submitted the Complainant would give evidence of the Complainant’s most recent correspondence of 14 December 2022 with the CEO with subsequently emails to Mr O’Donoghue and the CEO in January and February 2023 are proof of the ongoing discrimination.

The Complainant made legal submissions at the close of the hearing on this objection referencing Section 77 (5) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 - 2015 together with the decisions of County Cork VEC v Anne Hurley, [2017] EDA1124, Barclays Bank Plc v Kapur) [1989] IRLR387, Brothers of Charity Services, Galway v Kieran O’Toole, [2017] EDA177 and Mary Dempsey v NUIG [DEC-E2014-039]

Substantive Case

The Complainant gave evidence of her position which worked on a full time working until 2015 when she first had difficulties with her back. Her disability continued and she was under the care of her medical advisers.

The Complainant gave evidence of her colleague who had been provided with a specialist chair, stand up desk, kneeling pad and even a microwave to warm up heat packs.

On 9 June 2016, a report was issued from the Respondent’s Occupational Health Doctor recommending an ergonomic assessment.

Following this medical report on 15 June 2016, an internal VDU assessment was carried out. She was advised by the assessor that he could not recommend a specific chair for her but she could get an inflatable back cushioned chair and a mat for under her chair. The Complainant gave evidence she did not receive either of these items.

From her initial treatment with her Physiotherapist she was advised, in writing, to seek a lumbar support cushion which she purchased herself. It was her evidence that she sought payment from the Respondent for this cushion. However, by letter dated 21 June 2016, she wrote to the Staff Welfare Officer following a meeting expressing her disappointment at their treatment of her when she was told that the Respondent would either pay for the cushion or the chair.  “So basically, I am either allowed to pay for my own chair for long term use or pay for the back-up seat which was the only solution available to me at short notice to enable me to return to work”, she stated in her letter.

On 27 June 2016, she went on sick leave for the remainder of that year due to her disability. When she returned she noted nothing had changed in her workstation.

In January 2017 she was reviewed by the Respondent’s Occupational Health Doctor and deemed unfit for work. In March and April 2017, she submitted reports from her Consultant and GP regarding her disability to the Respondent.

In May 2017 she received an updated report from the Respondent’s Occupational Health Doctor agreeing with her own medical advisors that a phased return to work was advised. A further ergonomic assessment was recommended.

On 8 June 2017 the Complainant received a letter from the HR Department following the advice of the Occupational Health Doctor of a phased return to work and confirming an ergonomic assessment will be carried out.

The Complainant gave evidence that no accommodation to her workstation had been made at this stage and after her first day back to work she was in pain that evening. So much so she emailed the assessor that night from her personal email address requesting a mat.

In June 2017 she met with the Mr O’Donoghue and raised a concern as to the manner in which HR had dealt with her. She also advised that she felt the HR department were slowing down her return to work. 

By 12 June 2017 no mat or chair had been provided. The Complainant was on sick leave following this date. It was the Complainant’s evidence that she was “not saying it was 100% the fault of her workstation but it did not help”.

It was the Complainant’s evidence that emails from the Respondent’s Facilities Department were received to her work email during the period she was on sick leave and as she had no access to the account, she was not aware of them. As a consequence, no equipment was ordered.

A third medical review was undertaking in October 2017 by the Respondent’s Occupational Health Doctor again advising of an ergonomic review before she returned to work, phased return to work, a meeting with the Director of Services to attempt to resolve her issues with a further review in 6-8 weeks. She was deemed fit to return to work at this time.

A further internal ergonomic assessment was organised, and the Complainant was again advised the assessor could not recommend a specialist chair. The Complainant wrote to the Director of Services, Mr O’Donoghue on 23 October 2017 noting the inflatable back cushioned chair had not been provided. She noted this was suggested initially by the Respondent’s own assessor. The Complainant outlining her suggested return to workdays on the phased basis as recommended. It was her evidence there was no mat or phone cable provided either at this time.

A fourth medical review was undertaking in November 2017 by the Respondent’s Occupational Health Doctor advising of increasing her working days from January 2018. This opinion was not discussed with the Complainant at the medical consultation, and she communicated this to Mr Quinlan by the Complainant in a letter dated 4 December 2017. It was at this time that the Complainant stated in her evidence, that she got a “firm no” from Mr Quinlan on the increase of her working hours. It was her evidence that she asked that the return to work be slowed down. She stated she has previously flagged this point to HR in her letter of June 2017. It was for this reason she was reluctant to fill a schedule as HR were so “rigid”.  Her return-to-work approach was supported by her GP in a medical report of 12 January 2018 which was addressed directly to the Respondent.

The Complainant further highlighted in her evidence that her GP repeated the advice that the Complainant would benefit from an appropriate chair and emphasised that such an accommodation will facilitate her return to work.

On 6 February 2018, Mr Quinlan wrote to the Complainant following her GP’s report saying it was up to the Complainant to get someone to certify a chair. It was the Complainant’s evidence that her GP had put it in writing that she could not recommend a particular chair. The Complainant’s own physiotherapist explained to her that she could not simply attend her workplace without being engaged by the Respondent.  At this stage, the Complainant described feeling very frustrated.

By email dated 14 February 2018, the Complainant gave evidence that she emailed Mr O’Donoghue about her ongoing situation. She also advised about the availability of her Physiotherapist to attend the workplace if engaged by the Respondent. A reply was sent from Mr O’Donoghue advising he would speak with HR.

At this point in time, the Complainant gave evidence of the impact the reduced working hours was having on her finances this situation. This was relied to Mr O’Donoghue in follow up email of 14 March 2018 when she had not been contacted by Mr Quinlan, as promised. She also noted she was still using a “standard chair”. By reply, Mr O’Donoghue did apologise and advised he would follow up with Mr Quinlan.

It was her evidence there was a phone call with Mr Quinlan in March 2018 during which she told him she felt her requests were being dismissed.

The Complainant attended a second Occupational Health Doctor engaged by the Respondent in April 2018. It was recommended a “comprehensive ergonomic review of her workstation to include consideration of a change of chair” together with a “gradual and monitored return to full time hours. This should be flexible, and symptom based”. The Complainant felt that the Occupational Health Doctor sought to give clear directions to the Respondent so she could get a proper ergonomic assessment from the Respondent. She also asked the Doctor if he could recommend a specific chair and he advised he was not in a position to do so.

In May 2018 a Physiotherapy was engaged by the Respondent and they carried out an ergonomic assessment of the Complainant’s workstation. On 20 June 2018, the Complainant emailed Mr Quinlan advising she had not heard back from the Physiotherapy following the ergonomic assessment. Again, she expressed her frustration at the delay in allowing her return to work and the financial impact it was having on her.

By letter dated 10 July 2018, Mr Quinlan sent the Complainant a copy of the report and advised that the Respondent was in the “process of procuring the products recommended i.e., chair, footrest, monitor arm, alternative mat and cable tidy.” It was suggested that a meeting would be arranged to allow for her gradual return to work once the equipment had been installed.

In August 2018, the chair was fitted at the Complainant’s workstation, but she immediately flagged it that chair was not suitable. After reviewing with the Physiotherapist’s report that evening, she confirmed that chair delivered was not the chair recommended. The Complainant herself followed up with the Physiotherapist directly cc’ing Mr Quinlan. Mr Quinlan advised that the Physiotherapist was contacted when the original chair was out of stock and recommended the alternative chair.  Mr Quinlan advised he had sought to order the original chair recommended.

On 31 July 2018, a further letter was sent by the Complainant’s GP to the Respondent on her return to work. This was responded to by the Respondent by letter dated 9 October 2018 advising that that she can increase her hours to 4 half days from 15 October 2018. The Complainant described feeling delighted that she could increase her working hours and earnings as it was having an impact on her finances particularly in light of the length of time this issue has been ongoing.

In October 2018, the new chair did arrive, and her working hours increased to 4 half days and subsequently increased to 5 half days in December 2018. By letter dated, 16 April 2019, the Complainant’s GP advised that she was fit to work 6 half days spread over 5 days. Mr Quinlan replied on 9 May 2019 offering 1 full day and 4 half days. The Complainant met with Mr Quinlan to discuss her increased working hours and explain she could work in accordance with her GP’s advice but was unable to work a full day. It was her evidence that Mr Quinlan gave a “blanket no” to her suggestion citing flexible working policy which she said did not apply to her. The Complainant continued to seek an increase in her working hours as per her GP’s recommendation in April 2019 with correspondence to Mr Quinlan in November and December 2019.

The Complainant gave evidence that she felt she had no option but to raise a formal grievance which she invoked in May 2018 to Mr O’Donoghue. A third-party investigator was appointed, and the Complainant met with them to give her statements in August 2018. The grievance related to the failure to accommodate her reasonable request, inequitable treatment in comparison to her colleagues, on going financial loss due to the delays by the Respondent to accommodate her with a safe workstation which would facilitate her return to work, poor communication from the HR department and failure to handle her complaint in accordance with policies. A draft report was furnished to the Complainant in February 2020 but despite following up several times, was advised that the Director of Services, Mr O’Donoghue, instructed that the investigation be paused. She further noted that the third party had sought instructions to recommence the investigation, but it had not being forthcoming. To date the Complainant had not received a final report to her grievance.

The Complainant opened a letter dated 14 December 2022 to Moira Murrell, CEO of the Respondent, stating she wanted to make a formal complaint on the ongoing situation. It was her evidence that in the letter she was asking “to please increase my days and return to work” as per her GP’s letter of April 2019.

By email dated, 18 January 2023, the CEO acknowledged her email and advised Mr O’Donoghue would be in touch. Having not received a response, the Complainant gave evidence that she followed up by email on 18 February 2023. It was her evidence that the Complainant felt no one was taking this on and she was the one that was “doing all the running” herself. The Complainant felt she was left with no option but to refer the matter to the WRC in March 2023 when there was no response from the Respondent. She stated in her evidence that it was “not her choice” to be before the WRC, she feels “let down” , she was “treated differently” by asking to clock in and out for Physiotherapy when her colleagues were not and sat next to a colleague who had all reasonable accommodation for his disability.

The Complainant’s solicitor opened the legal submissions and referred to caselaw. In particular, the Labour Court case which further elaborated on the interpretation of Section 85A (1) of the EEA in Melbury v Valpeters EDA/0917, wherein it is stated that this section: “places the burden of establishing the primary facts fairly and squarely on the Complainant and the language of this provision admits of no exceptions to that evidential rules”.

A Store Assistant – v- A Retailer ADJ00037822, in order to ascertain if a prima facie case has been established, a three tier test is employed:

Firstly, the Complainant must establish that she is covered by the relevant discriminatory ground;

Secondly, that the specific treatment allegedly has occurred; and

Thirdly, that the treatment was less favourable than the treatment which was or would be afforded to another person in similar circumstances not covered by the relevant discriminatory ground.

In relation to part 1 of the test, it was contended that it cannot be disputed that the Complainant suffers from a disability and referred to the numerous G.P notes and Occupational Assessor Reports presented in evidence to ground same. She was given a specific direction for accommodations. Finally, she was treated less favourably than her colleague by the Respondent.

Preliminary Objection

The Respondent raised a preliminary objection on the timing of the Complaint. It was submitted that the cognisable period was 6 months and for the purpose of the Act is 11 September 2022 to 11 March 2023 between which no discriminatory act occurred.

No caselaw was opened by the Respondent when it was invited to make legal submissions at the end of the hearing.

Substantive Case

Following the direction to proceed with the hearing after the Respondent’s second application for an adjournment was refused, the Respondent submitted that it was “not prepared to call any witnesses” and the Respondent will “rest its case” to take it up with another forum.

The Respondent choose not to present evidence from either Mr Martin O’Donoghue or Mr Liam Quinlan.

The Respondent did avail of the opportunity to cross examine the Complainant.

Applications for Adjournments

The Respondent made two applications for an adjournment on the basis that it had not received the Complainant’s submission until 2 days before the hearing date. The first application was made at the outset of the hearing and the second after the Complainant finished her evidence in chief.

After hearing both parties and making inquiries of the parties’ representatives, the applications were refused on the basis that the correspondence which formed the basis of this case was, at all times, within the possession of both parties. While there was no documentary evidence attached to the Respondent’s submission, it did provide 17 pages of detailed submission referring to correspondence between the parties. The Respondent’s representative confirmed, “I am not disputing I have not received or written these documents”.

From my reading of both sets of submissions, in advance of the hearing, the issues in dispute were narrow with a tread of similar, if not the same, correspondence. The Complainant was a lay litigant at the outset of this process and only later engaged the services of her solicitor. It was further explained to the party that ultimately a decision is based on the primary evidence given under Oath or Affirmation at the hearing. In an equality claim, where the burden of proof rests with the Complainant, she must present her evidence first. Thereby, the Respondent would have the benefit of hearing her evidence.  

All documentary evidence was presented on screen at the hearing for parties to follow.

After her evidence, the Respondent was offered a break to take instructions particular in light of the submission the Respondent would not be engaging in the hearing. Eventually, the Respondent did take up the suggestion of a break. Upon return, it advised its position remained unchanged but would cross examine the Complainant.

It was noted a previous adjournment was allowed at the request of the Respondent in May 2023.

In conclusion, I was satisfied that the Respondent was not in any way prejudice by the late arrival of the Complainant’s submission. This was not a trial by ambush when both parties had within their possession from 2016 to date all the documentary evidence presented by the Complainant in her evidence together with a detailed narrative on her Complaint Form to the WRC.

Directions

At the outset of the cross examination of the Complainant, she was told by the Respondent’s representative that he only wanted “simple yes or no answers”. As the questioning continued, the Complainant sought to respond more fully to the questions but was cut off by the Respondent’s representative again repeating he wanted yes or no answers. The Respondent’s representative was directed to let the witness answer to which he took significant issue. Therefore, for the purposes of clarity it is entirely reasonable for an Adjudicator to intervene in cross examination where a Complainant is not being given an adequate opportunity to answer the question as per the judgment in People (DPP) v Hayes [2011] IECCA 65.

Preliminary Objection

Section 77 (5) (a) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2015 provides:-

“Subject to paragraph (b), a claim for redress in respect of discrimination or victimisation may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of occurrence of the discrimination or victimisation to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.”

Section 77 (6) which acts independently of Section 77 (5):-

“For the purposes of this section—

(a) discrimination or victimisation occurs—

(i) if the act constituting it extends over a period, at the end of the period,

(ii) if it arises by virtue of a term in a contract, throughout the duration of the contract, and

(iii) if it arises by virtue of a provision which operates over a period, throughout the period,

(b) a deliberate omission by a person to do something occurs when the person decides not to do it, and

(c) a respondent is presumed, unless the contrary is shown, to decide not to do something when the respondent either—

(i) does an act inconsistent with doing it, or

(ii) the period expires during which the respondent might reasonably have been expected to do it.”

The Labour Court in County Cork VEC v Anne Hurley, [2017] EDA1124 discusses the different forms of continuing discrimination:-

“Sub-Section (5) and Sub-Section 6 (A) of S.77 deal with different forms of continuing discrimination

or victimisation. Under Sub-Section 6 (A) an Act will be regarded as extending over a period, and so

treated as done at the end of that period, if an Employer maintains and keeps in force a discriminatory regime, rule, practice or principle which has had a clear and adverse effect on the Complainant (Barclays Bank Plc v Kapur) [1989] IRLR387).

This Sub-Section would apply where, for example, an Employer maintains a discriminatory requirement for access to employment or promotion. In such a case the time limit will only run from the time that the Policy or Practise is discontinued. Hence an aggrieved party could maintain a claim in respect of Acts or omissions which occurred in pursuance of the Policy or Practice regardless of when the Act or omission occurred”.

InDempsey v National University of Ireland Galway [DEC-E2014-039]the Equality Authority held:

“Having regard to my findings below, I find that this was a related Act of discriminatory treatment in

relation to her conditions. I am also satisfied that the Complainant has established a satisfactory link

between all incidents, and they can be considered as separate manifestations of the same disposition

to discriminate and constitute an ongoing Act or a continuum of discrimination within the meaning of

Section 77. I find therefore that the complaints were referred to within the 6-month time limits provided for in Section 77 (5) (a) of the Acts and that I have jurisdiction in the matter.”

The Complainant presented evidence of her correspondence with Mr Quinlan, Mr O’Donoghue and Ms Murrell with the first official request for accommodation coming by way of a medical report from the Respondent’s Occupational Health Doctor, dated 9 June 2016. It was the Complainant’s evidence that her requests for accommodation continued up to a letter to the CEO dated 14 December 2022. The Respondent questioned the Complainant on this asking if she had requested Mr Quinlan to accommodate her increased hours since 2019 to which she replied , “no, not since I was given a flat no.” Asked, again by the Respondent under cross examination, if she made a request to increase her hours in 2021 or 2022, she replied, “I did, I sent a formal letter to the CEO” in December 2022. It was accepted by the parties that the letter of December 2022 to the CEO does refer to the ongoing grievance investigation. However, it was also the Complainant’s evidence that she did raise her working hours separately in this letter:-

“This has left me trying to cope with all the work in the office for two 12-month periods working only half days – which is impossible. I’ve ended up losing countless hours trying to cover the work. So on the one hand Liam Quinlan will not accommodate me to gradually increase my working hours but on the other hand KCC are content to allow me to put in extra house unpaid to keep the office going.”

It was undisputed that the working hours relates to the 6 half days she was deemed medically fit to undertake by her GP in April 2019.

The Complainant was asked in re-examination if the Respondent had reviewed the decision made by Mr Quinlan in January 2020 to increase her working hours beyond 5 half days? It was the Complainant’s evidence that “no never”, it was a “blanked no” and added that her own Physiotherapist offered to carry out a review for the Respondent but this never happened.

The Complainant gave clear evidence on the accommodations she did receive around the chair, mat and monitor arm arriving in 2019 but the footrest was incorrect and never replace with the cable tidy and phone cable never arriving. The Complainant stated in evidence that once her colleague retired she had access to his standing desk. She accepted she did not request these recently but added that she was told that was the footrest she was getting and “I would be tearing my hair out looking for anything else”.

In conclusion,  I find that there is continuing discrimination, up to the date of the Complaint Form to the WRC on 15 March 2023, of the Complainant in the failure of the Respondent to provide all the appropriate workplace accommodation in the Physiotherapist report of 25 May 2018 together with failure to increase her  working hour which are also fall within the definition of accommodation, s as recommended in her GP’s medical report of 16 April 2019.

Substantive Case

Section 6 (1) of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2015 defines discrimination as:-

“(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,”

Section 6 (2) continues:-

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

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”),

The employer’s obligations are set out in Section 16 (3):-

(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.

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, but

(c) does not include any treatment, facility or thing that the person might ordinarily or reasonably provide for himself or herself;”

The Respondent decided not to present any evidence at the hearing and therefore, the Complainant’s evidence was uncontested  

Thereby it was accepted she has a disability.

It is further accepted that the Complainant was treated less favourable compared to her now retired colleague. It is accepted that the Respondent failed to reasonable accommodate the Complainant to allow her safely to return to work by providing a suitable workstation and accommodate the increase in her working hours. It is of particular note these recommendations were made, by not only the Complainant’s own GP, but the Respondent’s both Occupational Health Doctors. 

Bolger, Bruton, Kimber; Employment Equality Law , 2nd Ed. 2022 at para. 7-107 summaries the obligation on employer:-

“In the employment sphere, the obligation of reasonable accommodation requires employers to remove barriers and make adjustments to the work environment or structure, in order that disabled individuals are placed in a similar position to their non-disabled counterparts. It requires employers to generally take a proactive approach to locating suitable measures with which an individual with a disability can be accommodated in the workplace.”

The Respondent in this case fell significantly short of what is expected of an employer in Section 16 (3) of the Employment Equality Act 1998. The low cost, straightforward recommendations made by five different medical experts, from both Complainant’s side but also agreed with by the Respondent’s own Occupational Health advisers. These recommendations were repeatedly made over a period of 7 years have not been adopted completely by the Respondent. What is most egregious on the part of the Respondent, a public body, it has still decided for whatever reason not to reasonably accommodate the Complainant fully. Due to the inaction of the Respondent, the Complainant has been prevented from returning to work to her full capacity. This comes despite representatives of the Respondent at the highest level being on notice both from the Complainant herself as well as a draft third party report of February 2020 compiled at the request of the Complainant. There is no reason for this inexcusable delay on the part of the Respondent.

The Complainant described herself as a good worker. This was evident from the fluency in which she gave evidence at the hearing. By her own admission she works hard to ensure that she manages her disability which has resulted in continued attendance in work, without sick leave due to her disability , since 2017.  

The impact of the Respondent’s failure has resulted in significant emotional and financial stress on the Complainant. This is repeatedly documented in her correspondence and the medical reports of her GP.  It was somewhat ironic that the suggestion put to her by the Respondent’s representative during cross examination why she does not work additional hours in the morning which would allow for an increase in the Complainant’s weekly hours on the CORE system? It was the Complainant’s response that what was being suggested makes sense to her and questioned why Mr Quinlan could not have allowed for her to undertake this approach instead of the blanket refusal in 2018.

On this basis I find the complainant has discharged the burden of proof and established a prima facia case of discrimination and failure to provide reasonable accommodation.

Neither party had an issue with the publication this decision with the named parties.

I find that the Complainant was discriminated on the grounds of disability and the Respondent failed to reasonably accommodate her in the workplace.

Due to the undisputed fact this matter has been ongoing since 2016 up to the date the Complaint Form was submitted in March 2023 not all reasonable accommodations had been made by the Respondent, I am awarding the Complainant compensation in the sum of €50,255.  This represents two year’s salary.

I am also cognisant of the fact that there is an outstanding draft grievance investigation report yet to be finalised which flagged these concerns to the Respondent as early as February 2020. There is no reason this report should be delayed any further and would expect it to be completed by the end of 2023.  

I further order that the Respondent immediately implement the weekly working hours recommended by Complainant’s GP in her report of 16 August 2019. Any subsequent increase in working hours is to be to implement with immediate effect upon receipt of a written medical report from the Complainant’s GP with consultation with the Complainant.

Finally, I order that the Respondent provide the Complainant with all equipment recommended by the Physio in her report of 25 May 2018 within 6 weeks of the date of this decision.

Employment Equality – Reasonable Accommodation – Disability