Employment Law Case Study: Discrimination Against a Special Needs Assistant Due to Disability

This case study explores the discrimination against a special needs assistant due to disability and the employer's obligations under the Employment Equality Act. It discusses the different decisions made by various courts and the Supreme Court's decision that established certain obligations on the employer while considering appropriate measures for the employees. The case highlights the importance of providing reasonable accommodation to disabled employees without imposing a disproportionate burden on the employer.

EMPLOYMENT LAW -
CASENOTE NANO NAGLE

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................3
Question 1....................................................................................................................................3
Question 2....................................................................................................................................5
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION
The case study is related to the Employment Law and Equality Law at workplace. The
case is between Marie Daly, the plaintiff and Nano Nagle School, the defendant. This case study
is about the discrimination against the plaintiff due to the disability suffered by Marie Daly. It
also states That the plaintiff is not capable of handling the job due to the disability.
MAIN BODY
Question 1
Marie Daly, the plaintiff was working as a Special need assistant for the nano nagle
school, a school for children with special disabilities. The teachers are assigned to guide the
children, supervising the children and assisting children in eating and dressing.
In July 2010, Marie Daly met with the car accident which left the plaintiff paralysed and
confined to wheelchair. The school as an employer stated that the plaintiff is unfit for the job
and refused her to return to work(Nolan, and Barrett, 2019). The plaintiff performed an
assessment where she found out that Marie Daly could only perform nine out of sixteen duties
requires for the job of SNA.
As assisted and advised by the Trade Union, the plaintiff filed an application and the claim under
the Employment Equality Act was first heard by the Equality Officer. She claimed that the
school decisions constitutes unlawful discrimination with the Plaintiff. The officer determined
that the appellant is not capable to perform the duties of SNA.
The appeal was sent to the where the labour court which reversed the decision of the equality
court and stated that the school has failed to provide necessary accommodation to the appellant
and awarded compensation. The decision of high court was reversed by the court of appeal and
Marie Daly finally appealed to the High court.
The claim raised by the plaintiff under the Employment Act claiming the unlawful
discrimination by the school and the employer(defendant) did not comply with the provisions of
the act to provide reasonable accommodation and appropriate measures to accommodate the
disability which can allow her to return to job(Sinden, 2017). One of the important issue raised
by the court pf appeal that focused on the core tasks and duties at workplace. The court pointed
out that a person has been provided with the reasonable measures to disable person, the employer
has no obligation to remove the employee from its position.

Section 16 provides certain provisions that should be taken into account that providing
appropriate measures to the employee will impose the disproportional burden on the employer
that involve the cost of taking measures and the financial resources involved. Another main issue
was the amount of compensation and the labour court did not make it clear on how the sum is the
appropriate sum for the compensation(Flynn, 2020). It was also observed that there should be a
rationale connection between the amount of compensation and the nature of circumstances of the
case.
According to Section 16 of the Employment Act, it is the duty of the employer to take reasonable
measures to assist the persons with the disabilities and helping the employee in the nature of the
work unless it puts unreasonable burden on the employer. It involves changing and improving
working pattern and providing training to the employees without discrimination with other
employees.
Supreme Court delivered its decision in the discrimination in lawsuit between the paralysed
special need assistant and the school that ended the employment of plaintiff based on its
disability. The Supreme Court disagreed with the courts and stated that the employer is under
the obligation to take appropriate measures while taking reasonable accommodation. Further the
important issue raised by the court regarding the responsibility of the school to consult about the
situation of Marie Daly. The court also founded out that the labour court did not consider all the
facts related to the case and did not investigate whether the school has their obligations under the
Employment Equality Act. The court while considering other issues emphasized that difference
between the “tasks” and “duties” and stated that “tasks” are connoting peripheral features of the
job and “duties” connotes central or important elements of the job. It was also observed that
imposing the duty on employer to provide entirely different job will impose disproportionate
burden on the employer(McCashin, 2018). It was also found out that while complying with the
duties while providing reasonable measures, the employer should consider that these measures
can cause disproportionate burden on the employer like financial resources and arrangement of
funding. A wise employer must consult the employee before taking any decision regarding the
appropriate measures related top the disability of the employee.
The Employment Equality Act provides the that no discrimination should take place with the
persons having disability. The Supreme court also made strict interpretation relating to the
employer's obligations and stated that the requirement should be fully met while considering the

potential to distribute disabled employees duties is important. The supreme court stated that the
employer should provide reasonable accommodation to the employees with the disability so that
they can perform their job and the school can observe whether the plaintiff is capable of doing
the job as special need assistant. The court's decision analyse the employer's responsibilities fr
providing reasonable accommodation to the employees so that they can perform their job
effectively.
Question 2
The case is regarding the related to the disability of special need assistant which has been
considered by the Supreme Court which was previously reasoned by the equality court, labour
court, high courts and the court of appeal and lastly appealed in Supreme Court by the plaintiff.
The judgments involve the requirement to consider providing reasonable accommodation to the
disabled employees under the employment equality act. According to the employment equality
act has the duty to take appropriate measures which include adapting employer's premises,
changing work patterns and distribution of various task among the employees(Jennifer, and
Delia, 2017). The court considered following points:The court rejected the decision of the court
of appeal to provide the task to other person or staff which is basically designed for the particular
person to perform the task assigned to them. The court also said that the employer should consult
the employee while taking reasonable steps regarding the disability.
The decision of the supreme court have made strict interpretation in the area of
employment equality act. It also stated that the employer while taking the appropriate measures
analysed in depth to provide assistance to the disabled employees. The court also considered that
while taking appropriate measures it should be noted that by taken such measures will not
impose burden on the employer in relation to cost in training, financial resources. The decisions
of the supreme court was shifted to the labour court for further analysis that while awarding
compensation, in depth investigation should be carried out and all the evidence should be taken
into consideration and there should be rationale connection between the sum of compensation
and the circumstances of the case(Cohen, 2019). The case was given in the favour of Marie
Daly and the supreme court has shifted the case to labour court to look forward to the extent
that with reasonable accommodation Marie Daly can return to the position as special needs
assistant.

The decision of the Supreme court clarifies the right of Marie Daly under the employment
equality act as it says that the employer must take reasonable measures to meet the requirements
of the disabled person sop that they can perform their part of job effectively without any
discrimination. If the school has taken appropriate measures relating to the disability of the
plaintiff then no problem would have taken place. Under the act, M. Daly have equal
opportunities, should be treated equal as other employees, undertake training and are entitled of
all the facilities like other employees. Under section 16, the employer has mandatory duty to
provide training to the disabled person, unless it Imposes burden on the employer. In relation to
the case, the claim made by the plaintiff against the employer of the school appealed in many
courts where different decisions were taken and other courts overruled the decisions of the other.
Some courts favoured the plaintiff and some stated that the plaintiff is not capable for the
position of special need assistant(Atkinson, et.al, 2018). At last the appeal was made in supreme
court which contradicted the decision of the labour court regarding the compensation and stated
that while determining the amount of compensation, there should be rationale connection
between the sum of compensation and the circumstances of the case and proper investigation
should be done. The court further extended the duties of employer and tribunal that employers
should have taken into consideration while providing reasonable accommodation to the
employees.

CONCLUSION
From the above case study, It can be summarized that in the case Marie Daly(plaintiff)v.
Nano Nagle, Supreme Court delivered the decision in the favour of the plaintiff and established
certain obligations on the employer while considering appropriate measures for the employees
and stated that while taking reasonable accommodation relating to the disability of the employee,
the employer should take such measures which doe not put disproportionate burden on the
employer's like cost on training na financial resources.

REFERENCES
Books and journals
Nolan, A. and Barrett, A., 2019. The role of self-employment in Ireland’s older workforce. The
Journal of the Economics of Ageing 14 p.100201.
Sinden, E., 2017. Exploring the gap between male and female employment in the South African
workforce. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 8(6) p.37.
Flynn, E., 2020. The Long Road to Ratification: Ireland and the CRPD. In Recognising Human
Rights in Different Cultural Contexts (pp. 133-156). Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore.
McCashin, A., 2018. Continuity and change in the welfare state: Social security in the Republic
of Ireland. Springer.
Jennifer, K. and Delia, F., 2017. Enabling people with disabilities through effective accessible
technology policies. In The Changing Disability Policy System (pp. 127-143).
Routledge.
Cohen, B., 2019. The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report: 20 Years On. Runnymede Trust.
Atkinson, et.al, 2018. Race, ethnicity & equality in UK history: A report and resource for
change.
1