<p>
	Woman banned from eating with colleagues and forcibly retired on medical grounds</p>
<p>
	A local authority has been ordered to pay &euro;40,000 to a disabled former employee who it was found to have been discriminated against.</p>
<p>
	The Workplace Relations Commission found the council had twice discriminated against the woman &ndash; in banning her from eating and drinking with colleagues and also retiring her on medical grounds last year after failing to reasonably accommodate a way for her to stay on.</p>
<p>
	The woman &ndash; a wheelchair user &ndash; was diagnosed with a genetic neurodegenerative movement disorder, Friedreich&rsquo;s Ataxia, at the age of 12. She began working with the council as a clerical officer in 2000 and left last January.</p>
<p>
	A commission hearing was told the council&rsquo;s human resources department banned the woman from eating and drinking with colleagues in 2009. She was also banned from eating and drinking at her desk.</p>
<p>
	The woman acknowledged that she had difficulties swallowing but said this was addressed by a therapist who recommended that she not eat dry foods and add a product to mashed food.</p>
<p>
	No medical report</p>
<p>
	She said colleagues would ask why she was not having a cup of tea or food at the morning break and that &ldquo;this was a cause of embarrassment and humiliation&rdquo;.</p>
<p>
	However, she did not want to cause an issue and did not raise the matter with the council at the time. She later argued that no medical report was ever put forward for the ban.</p>
<p>
	The council said that as the woman&rsquo;s claim relating to the ban dated back to 2009, she was out of time in bringing that part of her discrimination case. The commission said the council did not address the matter substantially in its submissions.</p>
<p>
	Commission adjudication officer Gaye Cunningham said that while some evidence was given of physical problems with coughing, medical evidence outlining the requirement to instruct the woman not to eat or drink in the workplace was not.</p>
<p>
	The hearing was told the council retired the woman based on a medical report in spite of a consultant cardiologist and neurologist stating they did not have an issue with her working. They said the fact she was working was beneficial for the woman and disagreed with a physician for the council who said working posed a risk to the woman&rsquo;s health.</p>
<p>
	Coughing fits</p>
<p>
	In its reply, the council said it requested a health and safety report in October 2015 on the basis that colleagues were becoming concerned for the woman&rsquo;s safety due to alarming coughing fits during which it would appear she had stopped breathing. Colleagues were not trained to deal with such scenarios and believed their own well-being was affected, it said.</p>
<p>
	The council said it tried to accommodate the woman in the workplace at all times. The range of duties she was capable of undertaking were narrowed over time to take account of the progressive nature of her illnesses; and a hoist for lifting and a specially-adapted keyboard were provided.</p>
<p>
	However, the council formed the view it could provide no further accommodations that would meet its duty of care towards both the woman and other staff.</p>
<p>
	At the meeting where she was retired, the woman was given no right to appeal. Her family asked the council &ldquo;Is that it?&rdquo;, meaning is there no appeal?, and the council replied &ldquo;Yes, that&rsquo;s it.&rdquo;</p>
<p>
	The commission found the council made efforts over the years to accommodate the woman but said that overall it failed in its duty to provide reasonably to do so.</p>
<p>
	&nbsp;</p>
<p>
	(Published by the Irish Times on the 4th January 2017)</p>
<p>
	<a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/council-ordered-to-pay-40-000-to-disabled-former-employee-1.2925833">http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/council-ordered-to-pay-40-000-to-disabled-former-employee-1.2925833</a></p>
