EDA2652

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No.: ADJ-00049598 (CA-00060862-001)

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the decision of the WRC Adjudication Officer under Section 83 Employment Equality Act, 1998 on 21 February 2025.

Labour Court hearings took place on 30 April 2026 and 20 August 2026.

The following is the Determination of the Court:

DETERMINATION:

This is an appeal by Tesco Ireland Ltd of a decision of an Adjudicator Officer (ADJ-00049598, CA-00060862-001 - dated 16 January 2025) in a complaint taken by Karen Rice under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 (“The Act”).

The Adjudication Officer held that Karen Rice was subject to discriminatory dismissal on the disability ground in breach of the Act. In a linked complaint, the Adjudication Officer found that Tesco Ireland Ltd discriminated against Karen Rice on the disability ground when it failed to provide her with reasonable accommodation. The Adjudication Officer made an award of €40,000 in respect of both complaints.  Tesco Ireland Ltd appealed both decisions to the Labour Court.

The Labour Court conducted a hearing of both the appeals over two days in Dublin on 30 April 2026 and 20 August 2026. Both parties made submissions and the Court heard sworn testimony from the Complainant and four witnesses on behalf of the Respondent. For ease of reference the parties are given the same designation as they had at first instance. Hence Karen Rice is referred to as “the Complainant” and Tesco Ireland Ltd is referred to as “the Respondent.”

The determination of the Court in relation to the complaint about reasonable accommodation is set out in EDA2653.

1. Background

The Complainant worked as a Customer Assistant at the Tesco Store in Ballyfermot since November 2007. In June 2020, the Complainant suffered from an aneurysm while at work, which significantly affected her vision. Thereafter, she was on long term sick leave due to her visual impairment.

The parties accept that the Complainant suffers from a disability for the purposes of the Act. The Complainant submits that the Respondent subjected her to discriminatory dismissal when it terminated her employment on 5 October 2023. The Respondent refutes that it is in breach of the Act and contends that the Complainant has not established facts from which a prima facie case of discrimination can be established.

1. Summary of Complainant’s Position

The Complainant was on long term sick leave due to visual impairment since June 2020. Solicitors for the Complainant wrote to the Respondent on several occasions requesting that it meaningfully engage with the Complainant about returning to work. They requested that the Complainant be facilitated with a referral to occupational health to assess her capacity to return to work. A medical report, dated 15 April 2021, stated that it was unlikely that the Complainant would return to work duties because of “long term visual impairment”. That was the total extent of the explanation provided. The Report did not examine the possibility of return with reasonable accommodations. The foundation of reasonable accommodation in equality is that it allows person with protected characteristics of disability to work was excluded from the Report.

In June 2021, occupational health reaffirmed that the Complainant was unfit for work and recommended a referral for a consultant ophthalmologist before assigning her to any role. This was not a review of accommodations but a recommendation to engage appropriate professionals to investigate them.

On 27 April 2022, solicitors for the Complainant wrote to the Respondent noting that the Complainant was fit to discuss a return to work and that the most recent occupational health report was nearly a year old and had not assessed her fitness to return to work. In the letter the Respondent was put on notice that it was their duty to assess potential accommodations. The Complainant’s solicitors received no further response. On 16 May 2022, the Respondent wrote to the Complainant’s solicitor stating that they would engage with the Complainant directly. The Complainant did not receive any communication from the Respondent.

The Complainant’s Solicitors wrote to the Respondent on 29 September 2022 seeking an update on the Complainant’s file. A Colleague Relations Partner replied on 12 October 2022 to say that the query had been passed to the Respondent’s legal team who would be in touch. The Complainant’s Solicitors wrote to the Respondent again on 24 January 2023. The Respondent failed to respond to this correspondence. The Complainant subsequently referred a complaint to the WRC in respect of the Respondent’s failure to provide the Complainant with reasonable accommodation or to adequately assess her condition.

After the Complainant referred the complaint to the WRC, the Respondent wrote to her in mid-2023 to arrange a meeting. The Respondent organised an occupational health assessment with a company called Visualise Training and Consultancy, which the Complainant attended on 5 June 2023, and a report was subsequently compiled.

The occupational workplace report was inadequate. The Visualise Training and Consultancy Report failed to evaluate how the Complainant could return to work with alternative working arrangements. Much of the report was centred on how the Complainant’s condition affects her personal and home life. The Report suggested NCBI assistance and grants available to the Complainant. Out of three recommended adjustments in the report, two pertained to personal life adjustments. The single reference to the viability of a return to work was seven lines long and stated that the nature and complexity of the Complainant’s conditions meant that it was extremely difficult to recommend equipment that would enable her to carry out any role efficiently and effectively. There was no substance to the conclusions or basis for how this assessment was reached. There was no explanation provided as to how the Complainant’s conditions prevented her from carrying out her role “efficiently and effectively”.  The report failed to examine alternative roles.

The Complainant subsequently received a letter on 5 October 2023 terminating her employment. The decision to dismiss relied on the deficient report. The Complainant appealed the decision, but the dismissal was upheld.

The Respondent is a large multinational operation and purports to be a leader in diversity and inclusion. The Respondent’s treatment of the Complainant undermines their commitment to their own values. The Respondent relied on inadequate reports to justify their treatment of the Complainant. They refused to engage with her while she sought to return to work until they received a WRC complaint. The Respondents inaction and lack of engagement shows that they hoped the Complainant would simply go away with time. The Respondent relied on outdated medical reports from the occupational health provider. The original medical report did not address the complaint's fitness to return to work with modifications. The Respondent did not assess, provide or discuss any reasonable accommodations with the Complainant. The Respondent did not consider possible alternative arrangements. The Respondent failed to substantively engage with the Complainant about a return to work. The respondent failed to secure an up-to-date occupational health report to examine if the complainant could return to work.  The Complainant was discriminatorily dismissed on the ground of her disability

3. Testimony of the Complainant

In June 2020, the Complainant experienced blurred vision while at work. As she described her symptoms, her manager walked away. She was later referred to a consultant, who diagnosed an aneurysm that had significantly impaired her sight: she had no vision in one eye and severely blurred vision in the other. The Complainant was not ill but had a disability that prevented her from attending work.

While absent from work, she received no communication from the company. Her solicitors wrote repeatedly requesting a referral to occupational health. At an occupational health assessment on 15 April 2021, she said that she wanted to return to work. When occupational health recommended a referral to a consultant ophthalmologist, the company asked her to obtain a letter from the Eye and Ear Hospital explaining her condition. Around the same time, she sought assistance with a grievance concerning her treatment by colleagues after she crossed picket lines at the store.

In April 2022, her solicitor wrote to the company, stating that it was obliged to provide reasonable accommodation and that assessing her role was not her consultant’s responsibility. Tesco told her solicitor that it would deal directly with the Complainant, but the company did not do that. She felt ignored and set aside. After a year without communication from the company, her solicitor wrote again. In March 2023, she referred her complaint to the WRC.

After she lodged her complaint to the WRC in March 2023, the company arranged for a company, Visualise Training and Consultancy, to meet her at home. The venue was later changed to the Ballyfermot branch. The meeting lasted about 30 minutes and focused on her disabilities; she was not asked to provide medical documents. The company offered her no support regarding her disability.

The Complainant was invited to a review meeting in August 2023 and asked to bring any alternative information. She attended with her daughter because, due to her grievance, she could not bring a union representative or colleague. She was dismissed in October 2023. The dismissal letter stated that she was dismissed for failing to provide an alternative medical opinion. She appealed because she felt the company had sidelined her, had not sought suitable work for her, and she felt that the assessment was inadequate.

Under cross-examination, the Complainant said she understood that the company needed to know the limitations arising from her condition before it could provide reasonable accommodation. She accepted that she had not suggested how she might perform her work. She did not know what duties she could undertake and believed that the doctor to whom the company had referred her should have assessed this. She accepted that the only document she submitted was a July 2021 report from the Eye and Ear Hospital. She provided no other documents or reports about her condition and did not submit an updated medical report after the company requested one in May 2022. She also accepted that, before her dismissal, she had not provided an alternative medical view or opinion.

The Complainant accepted that the 2021 and 2022 occupational health reports found her unfit to attend work. Although the 2021 report stated that she would not be fit to return for the foreseeable future, she believed she could have returned with training. She also gave the company the name of an NCBI contact.

The Complainant appealed her dismissal. At the appeal meeting, she said that she wanted to return to work but did not state that she was fit to do so. She believed training would have enabled her to determine whether she was ready. At the second medical assessment, the company doctor said he would speak to the company. Occupational health did not ask her for reports from her GP.

The Complainant accepted that she could not navigate independently, initially, and that she received support from the NCBI. When asked whether she expected the company to adjust her position without her input, the Complainant said she would have contributed to that process had she been given the opportunity, but no such opportunity was offered. She accepted that she had made enquiries about ill-health retirement, her pension, and a redundancy package.

1. Summary of Respondent’s Position

The Complainant was absent from work for over 30 months before her employment contract was terminated. The Respondent managed the Complainant’s absence by way of regular welfare meetings and appointments with the Respondent’s occupational health provider in line with the company Sickness Policy.

The Managers handling the situation were fully aware of the complexities of the Complainant’s conditions and went above and beyond to stay in contact with her during her absence, providing her with ample time to recover. In addition to numerous informal discussions, the Respondent arranged six welfare meetings. At all welfare meetings, the Complainant consistently reported that her vision was not improving. When asked whether there was anything the Respondent could do to support the Complainant’s return to work, she responded that there are no recommendations. At all times, the Complainant was advised if she had an alternate view from her own doctor, indicating that she would be fully fit in the near future, to bring supporting evidence to the meeting.

The Complainant was assessed by an occupational health physician on 15 April 2021, who determined that she would not be fit to resume normal duties in the foreseeable future. On 16 May 2022, the Complainant was again assessed by occupational health. The Physician’s Report confirmed that the Complainant was severely visually impaired and had a risk of falls and was unfit for work. The occupational health reports indicated no signs of improvement, provided no recommendations and suggested no potential return to work dates. The Respondent engaged a specialist organization, Visualise Training and Consultancy, that assists employees with visual impairments in the workplace. The Report from Visualise Training and Consultancy reaffirmed the severity of the Complainant’s condition and the unlikelihood of her return.

The medical assessments and workplace evaluations indicated that she was not fit to return to work in any capacity and no reasonable accommodations or alternative roles could be identified. At no point did the Complainant or her doctors propose any accommodations that might enable her to resume her duties. The Complainant did not at any point suggest, discuss or even consider potential accommodation that she would require, but merely stated that this is the respondent's role.

The Respondent’s decision to dismiss the Complainant was based on the information available. There was no conflicting evidence. The Complainant agreed with all findings in the assessment reports. A grievance lodged by the Complainant during this period led to a thorough investigation and detailed report further demonstrating the Respondent’s commitment to ensuring a transparent and fair process. This extensive grievance process, the medical capability process and the Complainant’s prolonged absence, was conducted fairly and in full compliance with fair procedures and best practice.

Ultimately, the Complainant was unfit to carry out her duties, and no adjustments could facilitate her return to work. The Respondent made a business decision based on the available information and all relevant facts regarding the Respondent’s capability. The Complainant was given clear notice that dismissal on the grounds of incapability was being considered. She was also provided with the opportunity to fully participate in the investigations and to present any information that could influence the Respondent’s decision. Despite being given the opportunity, she did not present any evidence from her GP, a consultant, or a specialist indicating that she would be able to return to work.

The Respondent ensured a fair and transparent process while carefully considering the Complainant’s circumstances. The Respondent made every effort to explore possible solutions, engaging in consultations and specialist assessments, all of which confirmed the severity of the Respondent’s condition. Given the medical findings, it was not practical to foresee a return to work in any capacity.

5. Evidence of Karl Moraghan

Mr Moraghan was the Store Manager at Ballyfermot Store. During the Complainant’s absence, he remained in contact with her and arranged occupational health assessments. They had a good relationship. Alongside numerous informal discussions, they held five or six welfare meetings and arranged two occupational health assessments.

The Complainant provided the company with one document about her condition: a July 2021 report from the Eye and Ear Hospital. The Complainant did not propose any accommodations to support her return to work, instead she sought that Tesco identify suitable measures. As he was not a medical practitioner, Mr Moraghan asked whether the NCBI could make recommendations and sought occupational health advice on possible reasonable accommodations. Occupational Health recommended an assessment by a consultant ophthalmologist. He did not arrange the referral because the Complainant agreed to do so herself. Mr Moraghan was not involved in the grievance investigations.

Under cross-examination, Mr Moraghan said he delayed referring the Complainant for an initial occupational health assessment to allow her time to recover. He reassured the Complainant, who was concerned about losing her job. He treated her absence as sickness and did not understand the seriousness of her condition until late February 2021. He did not know that her condition was classified as a disability until he reviewed the Eye and Ear Hospital report in July 2021. Although he acknowledged that Tesco had Disability Champions, he could not explain why the Complainant was not assigned a disability advocate at that stage.

6. Evidence of Kathryn Hogg

Ms Hogg took over as Store Manager in Ballyfermot store in 2023. She arranged an introductory call with the Complainant. She was aware that two medical reports stated that the Complainant was not fit to return to work. The Report from Visualise Training and Consultancy was conducted, following a request from the complainant and her solicitor, to ascertain what, if anything, the Complainant could do to return to work. The medical reports, and the Complainant herself, stated she was not fit to return to work.

A workplace assessment took place in Ballyfermot store on 5 June. It was initially scheduled to take place in the Complainant's home, but Ms Hogg queried whether that was an appropriate location given that the request was for a workplace assessment. The assessment took place in an office, as there were too many hazards on the shop floor.

Ms Hogg met with the Complainant to review the report, which provided useful information about the NCBI, fire safety and cane training. They also reviewed the two medical reports. On each occasion they met, Ms Hogg asked if the Complainant could provide any other alternative medical advice or opinion. None was provided. The Complainant said that she was not fit to return to work. Ms Hogg explored the possibility of a role in the call centre in Waterford. The Complainant could take calls but could not transfer calls onto a screen. The Complainant queried whether redundancy or early retirement pension was an option. Ms Hogg followed up on that query, but the Complainant was not a member of the pension scheme. Her role was not redundant.

Ms Hogg understood that there was no prospect of the Complainant returning to work. Ms Hogg considered all available evidence and explored all alternatives, when deciding to terminate the complainant's employment. Based on the medical reports and workplace assessment, the Complainant was not fit to return to work, nor was there any indication that she would be fit to undertake work. By her own evidence, she was not fit to return to work.  The Complainant said that it was up to the company, but the company needed some indication of what she could do.

Under cross examination, Ms Hogg said that she discussed the possibility of an alternative role in Waterford Call centre with the Complainant at a meeting in July 2023. No minutes were taken of that meeting. She accepted that the minutes of the meeting in August 2023 did not reflect any conversations about alternative roles in Waterford. She could not say why her evidence about alternative options was not divulged prior to giving that evidence to the Labour Court or why the Complainant might refute that such a conversation happened.

Ms Hogg did not refer the Complainant to a Consultant Ophthalmologist before terminating her employment, as she was aware that she was attending the Eye & Ear hospital and could have provided a report from her own Consultant. She accepted that the Complainant’s consultant could not have conducted a workplace assessment or provided such a report. Ms Hogg disagreed that the Respondent had placed a disproportionate burden on the Complainant, who was in receipt of social welfare payments, to secure a Consultant report. Ms Hogg said that the Complainant could have provided an up-to-date medical report on her fitness to return to work. Ms Hogg did not send her for an up-to-date medical review, as all the medical opinions were the same. Ms Hogg accepted that the Visualise Training and Consultancy Report was not a medical report and that the assessment took place in an office rather than the Complainant’s work environment. She did not raise any concerns about whether the report was fit for purpose. 

Ms Hogg made the decision to dismiss the Complainant on the grounds of ill-health based on the two medical reports, the Visualise Training and Consultancy Report and lack of information from the Complainant. She did not have any contemporaneous information available to her.  She understood that the last medical report was dated 2022 and 15 months old by that time. She accepted that 70% of the Visualise Training and Consultancy report dealt with non-workplace matters. 

7. Evidence of David Murphy

Mr. David Murphy conducted the appeal hearing. He reviewed he medical reports and the Visualise Training and Consultancy Report. The medical reports indicated that the Complainant was unfit for work. The report from 2021 said that the Complainant had a severe visual impairment, was unfit for work and was unlikely to resume normal duties because of the long term visual permanent. The Complainant agreed with the reports. She said that it was up to Tesco to know what she could do and that she might need more training.

Mr Murphy interviewed Mr Moraghan and Ms Hogg. He saw that Mr Moraghan was in touch with the Complainant eight times between 2021 and 2022 and Ms Hogg was in touch with her six times thereafter. While there were some gaps in the engagement, with a gap of eight months at one point, he did not find a lack of meaningful engagement. Mr Murphy upheld the decision to terminate the Complainant’s employment based on the information available and absence of any alternative information from the Complainant.

Under cross examination, Mr Murphy accepted that he relied upon the Visualise Training and Consultancy Report as a medical report. He was aware of the occupational health physician had requested a consultant ophthalmologist report but did not follow up on that as he was aware that the Complainant was attending her own consultant ophthalmologist and did not believe that an alternative assessment was necessary. The Visualise Training and Consultancy Report said that no adjustments were possible.

8. Evidence of David Morgan Williams.

Mr Morgan Williams works with Visualise Training and Consultancy, which provides occupational workplace assessments. Mr Morgan Williams outlined the standard approach to workplace assessments, which are intended to identify barriers and health and safety risks. Employers are ultimately responsible for implementing any recommendations.

Mr Morgan Williams did not conduct the Complainant’s workplace assessment. He reviewed the report and identified no issues at the time. The company’s holistic assessments always consider the home environment. The Complainant’s report recorded no recommendations at that time.

Under cross-examination, Mr Morgan Williams said that the Respondent company did not provide a brief because it was supplied by the occupational health provider. Terms of Reference are not usually included in the report. Mr Morgan Williams said he was surprised that the Respondent had relied on the Visualise Training and Consultancy Report to dismiss the Complainant on medical grounds. The assessment contains no medical component, and medical matters fall outside its scope. It generally accompanies a report from the occupational health provider. He accepted that the Complainant’s role had not been comprehensively reviewed.

9. The Law

Section 2 of the Act defines the term “Disability” includes: -

(e) a condition, illness or disease which affects a person's thought processes, perception of reality, emotions, or judgement or which results in disturbed behaviour,

and shall be taken to include a disability which exists at present, or which previously existed but no longer exists, or which may exist in the future or which is imputed to a person;

Section 85A (1) of the Act provides: -

85A.— (1) Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant from which it may be presumed that there has been discrimination in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

10. Deliberations

It is accepted that the Complainant has a disability for the purposes of the Act, as she has a visual impairment having suffered from an aneurysm in 2020.  The Complainant was not fit to attend work since June 2020 due to her disability. No evidence was presented to say that the Complainant suffered from ill health. Her own evidence was that she not ill but had a disability that prevented her from attending work. The Respondent terminated the Complainant's employment on the grounds of “ill health” on 5 October 2024. In the Court’s judgment, these facts are sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination, such that the Complainant has established a prima facie case of discriminatory dismissal on the disability ground. Having established a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden of proof shifts to the respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination.

The Complainant was dismissed by letter dated on 5 October 2023. The Respondent says that the dismissal was not discriminatory on the disability ground. The Court heard that the decision to dismiss the Complainant was based upon the medical evidence available to the Respondent at that time. The letter of dismissal states that: -

“As you are aware, the occupational health therapist expressed the view that you would not be fit to resume normal working for the foreseeable future. 

At the meeting, you were unable to provide an alternative medical opinion to that of the occupational health therapist. Consequently, we must assume that the occupational health therapist's medical opinion is not in dispute.

Whilst we have held your position open for you to date, we cannot continue doing so indefinitely. In light of the occupational health report. There are no grounds to continue holding your position open for you, given that you will not be in a position to resume normal working in the near future.”

The Respondent attached significant weight to the Visualise Training and Consultancy Report in arriving at the decision to terminate the Complainant’s employment. The Court heard that the occupational health provider commissioned Visualise Training and Consultancy to conduct an occupational workplace assessment. From the evidence presented, there was no engagement between the occupational assessment provider, Visualise Training and Consultancy, and the Respondent to ensure shared understanding of the different components of the Complainant’s role as Customer Assistant or the workplace environment where she worked.

The Court did not hear evidence from the person who conducted the assessment. Ms Hogg correctly identified that the assessment should not take place in the Complainant’s home. She directed that the assessment take place in the workplace. However, that did not happen, as the Court heard that the Complainant met with the assessor in an office and the assessment took place in an office environment. The Respondent said that this was because of slip and fall hazards on the shop floor.  On the evidence presented, there was no assessment of the Complainant’s actual work environment. The occupational assessment itself was general in nature and largely addressed non-workplace matters. Mr Morgan Williams, who gave evidence on behalf of Visualise Training and Consultancy, accepted that the Complainant’s role had not been comprehensively reviewed.

The Visualise Training and Consultancy Report made no recommendations in relation to the Complainant’s position the workplace stating:

“Due to the nature and complexity of currents conditions, it is extremely difficult to recommend equipment that would enable her to carry out any role efficiently and effectively as there are various complexities to her eye conditions. Therefore, currently, it is not possible to recommend any adjustments.”

These findings were made without any reference to an up-to-date medical report. The Complainant’s evidence was that she was not asked to provide any medical reports at the assessment meeting.  Notwithstanding that the Visualise Training and Consultancy Report clearly states “For the avoidance of doubt, this report does not offer medical advice for the benefit of the employee being assessed”, the Court heard from Mr Murphy that the Respondent relied on the occupational assessment as a medical report. Mr Morgan Williams expressed surprise that the Respondent had relied on the Visualise Training and Consultancy Report to dismiss the Complainant on medical grounds, as he said that medical matters fell outside the scope of the assessment. 

The most recent medical assessment report opened to the Court was dated June 2022, some 15 months before the Complainant’s employment was terminated. The June 2022 report was termed an “Addendum” and stated as follows:

“(1) She is unfit for work. (2) She has very poor blurred vision in her right eye. In her left eye she can only see hand movements at a close distance. (3) She is severely impaired visually. (4) Follow up with her ophthalmologist on a regular basis. (5) Registered with NCBI. (6) Visual impairment and risk of fall and accidents. (7) Accident risk. (8) With own GP. “

In the linked case of EDA2653 the Court determined that neither of the two reports from the Respondent’s occupational health provider, dating from April 2021 and June 2022, adequately addressed the question of whether any accommodation could be provided to support the Complainant’s return to work. The Court also held that no adequate explanation was provided to explain why the Respondent failed to refer the Complainant to a consultant ophthalmologist, as recommended by the occupational health physician in June 2021.

From the evidence presented, the Court finds that decision to dismiss the Complainant in October 2023 was made without any up-to-date medical evidence and, therefore, the Respondent was not in possession of all relevant information at the time of the dismissal. No reason was proffered to explain why the Respondent did not seek up-to-date medical report from the occupational health provider who had commissioned the workplace assessment before taking the decision to terminate the Complainant’s employment.

An employer is not obliged to keep an employee’s position open indefinitely if they are not fit to work. In this case, the employer dealt with the Complainant’s absence from work as an illness issue. The letter of termination refers to the Complainant’s “long term sickness absence.” The Complainant accepted that she was not certified fit to work when her employment was terminated in October 2023. By that time, she was absent from work for 30 months. However, the Complainant’s clear evidence was that she was not absent due to sickness or illness. She had a disability and she was unable to attend work because of that disability. The Complainant had sought over a sustained period that theemployer explore what reasonable accommodation was possible to allow her carry out her former position as a Customer Assistant.

It is possible that no accommodation could have enabled the Complainant in this case to return to work. The Respondent relied heavily on the Complainant’s failure to identify, discuss or recommend possible measures that might assist her return to work. While the Complainant’s stance was less than helpful, the onus remained on the employer to explore what accommodation was available, as outlined by the Labour Court in the linked determination EDA2653.

In determining this appeal, the Court has considered all the evidence adduced and carefully examined the parties’ submissions and extensive supporting documentation. The Court finds that the Complainant has established a prima face case of discrimination on the disability ground.

Based on the facts presented, the Court finds that the Respondent has failed to rebut that inference of discrimination. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Complainant was subject to a discriminatory dismissal on the disability ground when her employment terminated on 5 October 2023.

Redress

The Court considers that the appropriate redress is an award of compensation. Any sanction must be “effective, dissuasive and proportionate” as determined in Von Colson & Kamann v. Land Nordrhein Westfalen [1984] ECR 1891. In deciding on the award, the Court has taken account of the impact of the Respondent’s actions on the Complainant and the timeframe over which the discrimination occurred. The Court orders that the Respondent pay to the Complainant the amount of €20,000, which it considers to be a just and equitable award for the effects of discrimination on the ground of disability.

11. Determination

The Court finds that the complaint of discriminatory dismissal is well founded. 

The Court directs the Respondent to pay to the Complainant the amount of €20,000 for the effects of discrimination on the ground of disability.

The decision of the Adjudication Officer is varied accordingly.

The Court so determines.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
AL	______________________
09/10/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Determination should be in writing and addressed to Ms Amy Leonard, Court Secretary.