Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation Results in €28,000 Award in WRC

The Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) recently awarded €28,000 in Lukasz Swiercz v Lidl Ireland GmbH (ADJ-00059764) as compensation to an employee who was found to have been discriminated against on the grounds of disability, arising from a failure by his employer to provide reasonable accommodation. The employee brought the claim under the Employment Equality Acts 1998 – 2015 (the “Acts”).

Facts: The Complainant, a Warehouse Operative, had been employed by the Respondent since October 2013. In early 2025, he was diagnosed with a hernia and subsequently obtained a medical certificate. On or around 10th March 2025, the Complainant submitted a medical certificate confirming that he was fit to return to work, subject to “light duties only, no heavy lifting”.

Despite providing this medical certification, the Respondent did not permit the Complainant to return to work. The Complainant told the WRC that the Respondent effectively required him to be “fully fit” before resuming duties. Over a period of several months, the Complainant repeatedly sought to return to work and requested referral to Occupational Health. However, there was a delay of approximately four to six months before the Respondent arranged an Occupational Health assessment.

During this time, the Complainant was not in receipt of any income or social welfare, as he had been certified fit to attend work. The Complainant contended that there were a number of roles or modified duties available within the warehouse which would not involve heavy lifting. It was the Respondent’s evidence that no reasonable accommodation could be implemented for the Complainant. The Respondent denied that any suitable “light duties” existed and maintained that the role of Warehouse Operative was inherently physical in nature.

Decision: The Adjudicator, Elizabeth Spelman, noted that it was accepted that the Complainant had a disability within the meaning of the Acts and therefore enjoyed the protections of the Acts. The central issue for determination was therefore whether the Respondent had discharged its obligation to provide reasonable accommodation.

The Adjudicator was critical of the Respondent’s approach, noting in particular that no evidence of a meaningful assessment of possible accommodations had been put before her e.g. risk evaluations or relevant correspondence. The Respondent’s interpretation of the Complainant’s medical certificate, that “light duties” meant the Complainant could only carry out a desk job, was rejected by the Adjudicator. The Adjudicator also noted the significant delay in referring the Complainant to Occupational Health for approximately four to six months and noted that the Respondent seemed to rely on a broad approach that lighter duties were not facilitated. The Logistics Manager, who gave evidence, stated that “the position is that we do not facilitate lighter duties”.

In addition, the Adjudicator noted with concern that the Respondent sent a letter to the Complainant in April 2025 outlining its issues regarding the Complainant’s absence from work and what they regarded as a failure to follow the absence process (by failing to provide sick certificates) and threatening disciplinary action notwithstanding that the Complainant had provided a medical certificate stating that he was fit to return to work.

The Adjudicator concluded that the Respondent had failed to properly consider or implement reasonable accommodation and that this failure amounted to discrimination on the grounds of disability. The Adjudicator found that the Respondent had failed to demonstrate how the accommodation sought would be unduly burdensome and noted the scale of the Respondent’s business.

The Adjudicator awarded the Complainant €28,000, approximately one year’s salary. This took into account the Complainant’s financial loss of six months’ pay and, in particular, the Respondent’s conduct as follows:

• failure to engage in any meaningful way regarding Occupational Health until the Complainant instructed a solicitor
• unexplained delay in organising the Occupational Health appointment
• letter sent in April 2025 indicating that the Complainant may be subject to disciplinary action
• failure to assess comprehensively what reasonable accommodation could be implemented
• broad-brush position in refusing reasonable accommodations to Warehouse Operatives.

Takeaway for Employers: This case provides a useful reminder of the importance of meaningful engagement with employees seeking to return to work following illness or injury. It also highlights the obligation on employers to properly assess requests for reasonable accommodation on a case-by-case basis and to seek appropriate guidance from Occupational Health at an early stage. Employers should avoid adopting a blanket approach/policy and engage in a timely and meaningful manner with employees with a disability. They should also document their assessment of any requests for reasonable accommodation, and any assessments carried out in consideration of such requests.

Link:

https://workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2026/april/adj-00059764.html

Authors – Tara Kelly and Jenny Wakely

29th May 2026

AOC Solicitors
19–22 Baggot Street Lower
Dublin 2

www.aocsolicitors.ie