Builders’ merchanting business Chadwicks Group has been ordered to pay €60,000 compensation for the discriminatory dismissal of a long-serving employee who had to use a Zimmer frame as she recovered from back surgery.
Ms O’Reilly was represented in the case by solicitor Barry Kenny of Kenny O’Sullivan Solicitors and Arthur Cush BL. Ms O’Reilly commenced work with Chadwicks at the age of 17 in 1979 and worked with the firm from then until 1993 and from 1999 to 2022.
Ms O’Reilly, who worked at Chadwicks’ Sallynoggin store in Dublin and was promoted to a credit control assistant in 2018, told the WRC hearing that that she loved her job.
Back Surgery Complications and the Use of a Zimmer Frame
In February 2021, Ms O’Reilly attended hospital for a routine back surgery but when she awoke from the surgery, her right leg was paralysed and she was diagnosed with “dropped foot” due to unexpected complications with the surgery.
Ms O’Reilly outlined that her mobility was seriously compromised and she was initially able to move only very slowly and with the use of a Zimmer frame and crutches.
This was Ms O’Reilly’s first time on extended sick leave from work and she told the hearing that she was determined to regain her mobility and independence.
Lack of Accommodation
In her findings, Ms Murtagh has found that Chadwicks did not carry out a comprehensive assessment into the specific needs of Ms O’Reilly which would have enabled her to continue in her employment.
The adjudicator also found that Chadwicks misquoted its own doctor’s medical report in an attempt to justify its decision to terminate Ms O’Reilly’s employment.
Ms Murtagh found that the doctor did not state in any of his reports, contrary to Chadwicks’ assertion, that Ms O’Reilly was unfit for a sedentary role.
She went on to say that there was a failure by Chadwicks to provide Ms O’Reilly with reasonable accommodation to allow her continue in her job.
Ms Murtagh stated that Chadwicks did not examine or consider a hybrid role or working from home as a modification to Ms O’Reilly’s existing role.
Failure to Examine Hybrid Role Options
Ms Murtagh stated that Chadwicks did not examine or consider a hybrid role or working from home as a modification to Ms O’Reilly’s existing role.
Ms Murtagh pointed to Ms O’Reilly’s own consultant neurosurgeon who stated in a report:
“The consultant neurosurgeon further stated that “I do feel that she is fit to work in the same role, perhaps with a different job description but her current situation remains that she is independently mobile with one stick and is able to drive and I do not see any reason why she cannot be working in the capacity of accounts assistant”.
Chadwicks' Dismissal Justification
In the case, Chadwicks strongly disputed Ms O’Reilly’s claims and contended that it terminated Ms O’Reilly’s employment on the grounds of capability in accordance with the Unfair Dismissals Act.
Chadwicks – which operates 50 stores here – submitted that at the time of termination on August 12th 2022, Ms O’Reilly had been absent from the company since February 1st 2021, a period of one year and six months and was not medically fit for work for the foreseeable future.
Chadwicks further contended that it had to make a business decision with the information available to it, and all material facts concerning Ms O’Reilly’s capability.
It stated that Ms O’Reilly was given fair notice that the possibility and question of dismissal for incapability were being considered.
The builder provider group stated that it came to a reasonable conclusion that Ms O’Reilly was unfit and unable to return to work and that this conclusion justified her dismissal on grounds of incapability.
Solicitor Barry Kenny's Comments
Commenting on the outcome, Ms O’Reilly’s solicitor and employment law specialist, Barry Kenny said: “It is clear from the facts of this case that after many years of loyal service to the company, Ms O’ Reilly was treated unfairly by her employer and was the subject of a substantial discrimination when her employment was terminated.
He added: “I am pleased that the adjudicator in the case has agreed with the submission made on behalf of Ms O’ Reilly and we welcome the findings and the substantial award.”
Chadwicks has been contacted for comment.
Conclusion: A Case for Employer Responsibility
This case highlights the importance of employers’ responsibility to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities. The WRC’s decision serves as a reminder that employers must go beyond simply assessing medical fitness and actively explore ways to adapt roles and environments to support employees with disabilities. By failing to do so, employers risk not only facing legal consequences but also losing valuable employees and potentially damaging their company’s reputation.
