Visually impaired worker wins €30k for discrimination
A senior civil servant with a visual impairment has won €30,000 for disability discrimination after it took his department's IT team over a decade to give him a suitable work laptop.
Assistant principal officer Paul Hill said in a complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) that he was made to feel a "nuisance", a "troublemaker" and "an inconvenience" at the Department of Social Protection for seeking disability supports to help him do his work.
The Department has now been found in breach of the Employment Equality Act 1998 for failure to provide Mr Hill with reasonable accommodation at work from 2012 to 2024.
Mr Hill, the tribunal heard, had developed a visual impairment in his teens which left him significantly sensitive to light and impeded his ability to read and caused eye strain, headaches and fatigue at work.
The tribunal was told Mr Hill needed assistive technology to get his work done, including screen reader, magnification software and a touch screen to zoom in. Some of this software was "very processor-intensive", the WRC heard.
Mr Hill’s case was that the computers he received ran slowly and tended to crash or freeze with the assistive software running.
Despite "constant" contact with IT at the DSP, Mr Hill was left using the same laptop from 2014 to September 2021, the tribunal heard.
The Department’s lawyers said there were "no major issues" with Mr Hill’s work laptop from 2014 to 2020 and that any problems were down to Mr Hill either changing settings or what was termed "incorrect usage by user".
By then, his legal team told the commission, Mr Hill had been caused such "extreme work-related stress" by the computer situation that he handed his laptop back to IT and went on leave.
The IT team told him at that stage the machine was "too old" and "could not support" the accessibility software – but said it would be "outside the norm" to give him a replacement laptop with a touchscreen.
At the time, it was submitted by the State, there were "worldwide shortages" of computer components, and Mr Hill wanted a specific device and refused alternatives repeatedly.
Mr Hill "reluctantly" accepted a new laptop in November 2022, having expressed misgivings about the screen size on the 14" device and the lack of an anti-glare finish, the tribunal heard.
The complainant continued to write to IT suggesting options for "suitable laptops" in 2024. He told his colleagues it was "deeply hurtful and demoralising" to be met with the "persistent offering of a standard laptop".
In reply, the IT team replied: "No manufacturer or re-seller to date has been able to come up with a device to meet all the necessary requirements."
The State’s position was that Mr Hill had proposed a consumer-grade laptop, which did not meet the Department’s requirements for an encrypted device which could be configured for secure remote access to its servers.
In his complaint form, Mr Hill wrote: "All the 'negotiations’, ‘reminding’, ‘discussing’ of ‘Paul Hill’s issues’ have made me feel isolated, an inconvenience within the department, that I’m a troublemaker, that I’m unreasonable," he said.
State counsel Stephen O’Sullivan BL said in a legal submission this was "secondary hearsay" which the Department denied.
The State’s position was that the performance of Mr Hill’s computers was no worse than any other civil servants there.
"Insofar as hardware and software provided was not perfect during some periods of employment, this is true of hardware and software provided to all," Mr O’Sullivan submitted.
Peter Leonard BL, instructed by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) for Mr Hill, submitted that the DSP had failed to consult properly with his client on accommodations.
In his decision, published today (WEDS), adjudication officer Jim Dolan found that from the start of Mr Hill’s employment at DSP in 2012 until 2024, the civil servant "was not provided with reasonable accommodation" at work.
"This constitutes discrimination on the part of the respondent," Mr Dolan added. He ordered the Department to pay Mr Hill €30,000.
The adjudicator noted that the WRC proceedings were paused in 2024 so that a working group on disability accommodations could be set up to look for a solution.
The group had seen to it that a new laptop was bought for Mr Hill and a new version of the screen reader software was installed, the WRC heard. However, the exact configuration sought by Mr Hill did not seem to be possible for the DSP to procure, the tribunal noted.
Further accommodations for Mr Hill included a move to an office with blackout blinds and adjustable lighting, along with the provision of extra touch-screen monitors.
The adjustments had cost around €20,000, Mr Dolan noted.
"At the final hearing… it was accepted by all that the situation was improving and the hope was that it would continue to improve," Mr Dolan concluded.
Reporting by Stephen Bourke
Comments (0)