In the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) decision of Laura Beresford v South Munster Money Advice & Budgeting Service CLG (ADJ-00057297), the Complainant brought a claim under the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 after the Respondent failed to provide reasonable accommodation for her medical condition. The Respondent argued that funding restrictions constrained its ability to provide the required accommodation and maintained that the Complainant’s condition was not identified by her GP or Occupational Health as a disability within the meaning of the Employment Equality Acts. The WRC Adjudicator, Úna Glazier-Farmer, found that the Complainant had a disability within the meaning of the Acts and that the Respondent had failed to provide reasonable accommodation, thereby discriminating against the Complainant.
Facts: The Complainant became ill around April 2024 and was subsequently diagnosed with Vestibular Migraine, a condition which significantly affected her ability to function, particularly when over-tired or continuously working without sufficient rest. As a result, she was absent from work until early July 2024. When she returned to work, she informed the Respondent of her diagnosis and provided a GP letter that confirmed that she was fit to work, but recommended that reduced working hours would be beneficial in controlling her condition.
On 11th July 2024, the Complainant formally requested a reduction to her working hours from five days per week (35 hours) to a four-day week (28 hours), including one remote working day. She explained that this would assist her in managing fatigue and preventing symptom flare-ups. An Occupational Health assessment arranged by the Respondent also recommended in its Occupational Health Report on 22nd July 2024 that a four-day working week with one work from home day would benefit her, subject to operational feasibility.
However, the Complainant’s request was refused on the basis that the Respondent was restricted by the Citizens Information Board (CIB), a statutory agency of the State, which imposed a funding rule which only permitted contracts of either 17.5 hours (part-time) or 35 hours (full-time). It was the Respondent’s position that it had no discretion to grant a permanent 28-hour contract, as doing so would breach funding rules and jeopardise funding. This rule was confirmed to apply to all employees.
From July 2024 onwards, the Complainant was required to continue working in line with her normal working hours and had to use annual leave to take off one day every week to manage her symptoms. When her annual leave began to run low, she reduced this to taking off one day every two weeks (as annual leave). She lodged a formal grievance in October 2024, supported by further medical evidence. This resulted in a further refusal of her request, with the Respondent relying on the same policy. However, a temporary four-day week was offered conditional on backfilling her hours to avoid a negative impact on service delivery. There was no backfill secured for a lengthy period which resulted in the Complainant working full weeks while continuing to suffer significant difficulty and stress.
The Complainant maintained that adjustments or alternative arrangements had not been properly considered and argued that the Respondent effectively applied a blanket policy rather than undertaking an individual assessment of her circumstances and needs. She provided evidence that her condition constituted a disability within the meaning of the Acts and claimed that the Respondent had failed in its duty to provide reasonable accommodation.
In relation to the Complainant’s disability, the Respondent submitted that there was no medical evidence identifying her condition as a disability during the relevant period and, therefore, the statutory obligation to provide reasonable accommodation had not been triggered.
The Respondent further submitted that the GP and Occupational Health reports only outlined what might be beneficial for the Complainant rather than what was medically necessary, and the Respondent had willingly offered a range of accommodations such as a phased return to work, ergonomic adjustments, breaks, client allocation and a temporary four-day working week.
Decision: The Adjudicator first examined whether the Complainant’s condition fell within the meaning of a disability in line with Section 2 of the Employment Equality Acts. She considered, in particular, Section 2(c) of the Acts which refers to “the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of a person’s body”. While neither the GP report nor the Occupational Health report expressly identified the Complainant’s condition as a “disability”, the Adjudicator noted that whether or not a condition falls within the statutory definition is essentially a legal question rather than a medical one.
Both medical reports confirmed that the Complainant was diagnosed with Vestibular Migraine and this causes ongoing symptoms such as dizziness, fatigue and headaches. Reduced working hours alongside one remote day, breaks and ergonomic adjustments were recommended in both reports because the Complainant’s condition impacted her capacity to sustain full-time work without accommodations.
The Adjudicator referred to the decision of the English Employment Tribunal in Mr E Milrine v DHL Services Ltd 4105494/2022 where Vestibular Migraine was found to constitute a disability for the purposes of the English Equity Act 2010. Although there does not appear to be a similar finding in this jurisdiction, the Adjudicator accepted this decision.
Having considered the above, the Adjudicator was satisfied that the Complainant’s condition constituted a malfunction affecting bodily function and had more than a trivial or temporary impact on her ability to carry out normal working duties. Accordingly, it was found that the Complainant had a disability within the meaning of the Acts during the relevant period.
The other issue to be addressed was whether the Respondent had fulfilled its obligations under Section 16(3) of the Acts to provide reasonable accommodation. The Respondent had refused the Complainant’s request for a four-day working week which was supported by medical evidence on the basis that funding arrangements with CIB only permitted contracts of 17.5 hours or 35 hours. While a temporary four-day arrangement was offered, this was subject to backfilling.
Although it was acknowledged that the Respondent had engaged to some extent with the Complainant and had implemented certain measures, the Adjudicator found that the evidence demonstrated that the Respondent had not properly assessed the feasibility of the requested accommodation. There was insufficient evidence of a substantive and individualised assessment on whether a 28-hour contract could be implemented, and there had been no engagement with the consistent medical recommendation for reduced hours. Instead, the Respondent relied on general funding rules without exploring if flexibility or exceptions could be applied.
The Adjudicator emphasised that reliance on general funding constraints, without further enquiry or analysis, does not discharge an employer’s obligation under the Acts, stating that “[e]mployers must do more than apply blanket policies; they must consider the individual employee’s circumstances.” While the Adjudicator acknowledged that funding constraints can be relevant in an employer’s consideration of whether the accommodations sought involve a disproportionate burden, she found that the Respondent in this case had failed to demonstrate that granting the request would involve a disproportionate burden. The Adjudicator noted that the Complainant’s use of annual leave to manage her condition was not an appropriate substitute for reasonable accommodation.
Ultimately, the Adjudicator found that the Complainant was an individual with a disability within the meaning of the Acts and that the Respondent failed in its obligations to provide reasonable accommodation as required which subjected the Complainant to discrimination on the ground of disability.
In accordance with Section 82 of the Acts, the Respondent was ordered to compensate the Complainant in the amount of €20,000 for the effects of the discrimination. It was also ordered to review the Complainant’s working arrangements in consultation with her and having regard to updated medical evidence, with a view to implementing appropriate reasonable accommodation. Lastly, the Respondent was ordered to ensure that its policies and procedures are reviewed to ensure that individual assessments based on medical evidence are provided for reasonable accommodation requests, including where external funding arrangements apply.
Takeaway for Employers: This case highlights the importance of providing an individualised assessment of circumstances and needs based on medical evidence when dealing with an employee’s request for reasonable accommodation. Rather than solely relying on general policies or funding rules, employers need to properly consider the feasibility of the proposed accommodations and whether alternatives or flexible arrangements can be made in line with the employee’s individual requirements and medical recommendations. Where an employer is relying on funding constraints to refuse a request, it must demonstrate that such accommodation would be a disproportionate burden. A different decision may perhaps have been reached if the Respondent in this case had been able to demonstrate engagement with the CIB in an attempt to explore the possibility of flexibility in these circumstances.
Link: https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2026/june/adj-00057297.html
Authors- Erlan Li and Jenny Wakely
17 August, 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.