In the matter Dylan O’Riordan v Omniplex Cork Limited (EDA2620) the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) Adjudicator awarded the Complainant €12,000. Subsequently the Respondent appealed the decision to the Labour Court and the Complainant counter-appealed. The Labour Court more than doubled the award to the Complainant on appeal under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2015 (the “Acts”) for the Respondent’s failure to provide him with reasonable accommodation for his disability.
Facts:
The Complainant was employed by the Respondent cinema from March 2022, initially as a part-time Supervisor. The Complainant was promoted to Head Supervisor within six months before taking up the full-time role of Duty Manager in March 2023. The Complainant informed the Respondent during the recruitment process that he was autistic.
The Complainant gave evidence that he raised his need for reasonable accommodation on multiple occasions from late 2022 onwards and advised management that the existing roster arrangements were contributing to a decline in his mental health. He requested a more consistent roster to include two consecutive days off each week and not to be put on a late closing shift. The Complainant submitted that the General Manager told him these requests would not be approved by Head Office. Conversely, the General Manager told the WRC that while the Complainant had made comments such as “I’d love a weekend off” he had never made a specific request for reasonable accommodation to her. In October 2023, an incident occurred at the end of the employee’s shift where there was a problem with the projector. The Complainant left before this issue was resolved. The General Manger emailed the Complainant shortly after this incident expressing concern for his wellbeing and advising him to attend his GP. The Complainant responded to this email outlining his claims that his reasonable accommodation requests had not been properly actioned and the resulting toll on his mental and physical health. The Complainant subsequently commenced a period of certified sick leave.
The Respondent referred the Complainant to Occupational Health, who advised the Respondent he was not fit to work but was sufficiently well to engage with the Respondent regarding his accommodation requests. The Occupational Health provider recommended various accommodations including set working hours rather than variable shift patterns, earlier shifts, and access to a quiet space. The evidence before the Labour Court established that some accommodations, including a quiet space and noise-cancelling headphones, were implemented. The Respondent also proposed a number of revised rostering arrangements. However, the Complainant maintained that meaningful engagement only occurred after his condition had significantly deteriorated and that the proposed arrangements were not suitable as the roster was liable to change every 2-4 weeks. The Complainant ultimately stopped engaging with the Respondent due to the lack of progress and resigned from his employment in June 2024.
Decision:
The Labour Court considered the scope of the employer’s obligations under the Acts. In particular, it focused on the requirement to provide appropriate measures to enable a person with a disability to participate fully in employment, unless doing so would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer. The Court also emphasised that reasonable accommodation may include changes to working time arrangements and patterns of work.
While acknowledging that the Respondent had implemented some accommodations and had proposed revised rostering arrangements, the Labour Court concluded that there was a considerable delay in engaging meaningfully with the Complainant’s requests. The Court noted that the Complainant had consistently articulated the accommodations he required and that those requests broadly aligned with the recommendations later made by Occupational Health.
Importantly, the Labour Court found that no persuasive evidence had been advanced to demonstrate that the accommodations sought would impose a disproportionate burden on the Respondent. The Court concluded that the requested accommodations could have been implemented in a timely manner had the Respondent been genuinely committed to facilitating the Complainant’s return to work.
The Labour Court therefore increased the compensation award from €12,000 to €29,000, representing approximately one year’s salary, for the effects of the discrimination he experienced. In doing so, the Court referred to established European jurisprudence in Von Colson v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen confirming that awards for discrimination must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
Takeaway for Employers:
This case highlights that the duty to provide reasonable accommodation extends beyond simply considering accommodation requests. Employers must be able to demonstrate that they have engaged actively, promptly and meaningfully with employees seeking support and that any Occupational Health recommendations have been properly assessed and considered in a timely fashion. It is a high bar for an employer to rely on the accommodation being a “disproportionate burden” and it will need to be able to demonstrate this, particularly when the requests involve flexibility with little to no financial cost. Each reasonable accommodation request should be treated individually and kept under review, there is no one size fits all for any disability, including autism, and the accommodation needed may change from time to time. Training should also be regularly provided to management and all staff to bring awareness and avoid any stigmatism or discriminatory treatment by co-workers.
The Labour Court makes it very clear in this decision that limited engagement with an employee requesting reasonable accommodation is not enough. The increase in the award to one year’s gross salary is notable in circumstances where the discrimination did not include a dismissal, however the quantum of the award seems to reflect the Labour Court’s view that the employer was not sufficiently committed to facilitating the employee’s return to work and had no justification for the approach it took.
Link- https://workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2026/june/eda2620.html
Authors – Tara Kelly and Anne O’Connell
30th June 2026
If you found this article useful you might like our employment law newsletter. We write monthly articles, like this, covering interesting cases, decisions, news and developments in Ireland.