Nano Nagle School -v- Daly [2015] IEHC 785 (11 December 2015)

Nano Nagle School -v- Daly [2015] IEHC 785 (11 December 2015)

The employer failed to engage with its statutory duty under s.16 of the Employment Equality Act to consider reasonable accommodation, including redistribution of tasks, before dismissing the employee. The Labour Court's determination was supported by evidence and correct in law; no error of law was demonstrated.

Citation
[2015] IEHC 785
Parties
Appellant: Nano Nagle School; Respondent: Marie Daly
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
11 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Statutory Appeal / High Court Appeal on Point of Law From Labour Court Determination
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Reasonable Accommodation, Dismissal, Distribution of Tasks, Disproportionate Burden, Consultation With Employee
Employment Law Equality Law Disability Law Reasonable Accommodation Dismissal Distribution of Tasks Disproportionate Burden Consultation With Employee

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nano Nagle School

Appellant

Marie Daly

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Statutory Appeal / High Court Appeal on Point of Law From Labour Court Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer failed to comply with its duty under s.16 of the Employment Equality Act to consider reasonable accommodation for a disabled employee
  2. 2 Whether the Labour Court erred in law in its interpretation of s.16 regarding adaptation of duties
  3. 3 Whether the employer was obliged to consult the employee before dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

The employer failed to engage with its statutory duty under s.16 of the Employment Equality Act to consider reasonable accommodation, including redistribution of tasks, before dismissing the employee. The Labour Court's determination was supported by evidence and correct in law; no error of law was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Labour Court determination affirmed
  • No error of law found