Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63 (31 July 2019)

Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63 (31 July 2019)

The Supreme Court held that the employer's duty of reasonable accommodation under s.16 of the Employment Equality Act requires more than mere consideration of peripheral tasks; it may require redistribution of some duties unless this would fundamentally alter the position or impose a disproportionate burden. The Court of Appeal erred in holding that only peripheral tasks could be redistributed and that the applicant had to be able to perform all core duties. The correct approach is a fact-specific assessment of what is reasonable and proportionate, consistent with EU and international law.

Citation
[2019] IESC 63
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Marie Daly; Respondent/respondent: Nano Nagle School
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
31 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Employment Equality/disability Discrimination Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Reasonable Accommodation, Disability Discrimination, Employment Equality, Interpretation of Statutory Duties, EU Framework Directive 2000/78/ec, UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities
Employment Law Equality Law Disability Law EU Law Reasonable Accommodation Disability Discrimination Employment Equality Interpretation of Statutory Duties +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marie Daly

Applicant/appellant

Nano Nagle School

Respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Equality/disability Discrimination Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer failed to provide reasonable accommodation to a disabled employee under s.16 of the Employment Equality Act 1998-2011
  2. 2 Whether the distinction between 'duties' and 'tasks' in s.16 permits or requires redistribution of core duties to accommodate disability
  3. 3 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the statutory obligations regarding reasonable accommodation

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the employer's duty of reasonable accommodation under s.16 of the Employment Equality Act requires more than mere consideration of peripheral tasks; it may require redistribution of some duties unless this would fundamentally alter the position or impose a disproportionate burden. The Court of Appeal erred in holding that only peripheral tasks could be redistributed and that the applicant had to be able to perform all core duties. The correct approach is a fact-specific assessment of what is reasonable and proportionate, consistent with EU and international law.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Decision of the Court of Appeal set aside
  • Labour Court's finding of discrimination and award of compensation restored