Introduction to Stress and Disability Caselaw
A recent case was decided by the Labour Court, which examined whether stress could amount to a ‘disability’ for the purposes of the Employment Equality Acts.
Background
The employee was a Personnel Manager in one of the employer’s stores and was a longstanding employee. This case was an appeal of a Workplace Relations Commission decision taken by the employee, alleging discrimination on grounds of disability, contrary to the terms of the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015 (Determination No. EDA2012).
Stress and Disability – Relevant Law
Under the Employment Equality Acts “disability” means—
(a) the total or partial absence of a person’s bodily or mental functions, including the absence of a part of a person’s body,
(b) the presence in the body of organisms causing, or likely to cause, chronic disease or illness,
(c) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of a person’s body,
(d) a condition or malfunction which results in a person learning differently from a person without the condition or malfunction, or
(e) a condition, illness or disease which affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgement or which results in disturbed behaviour,
and shall be taken to include a disability which exists at present, or which previously existed but no longer exists, or which may exist in the future or which is imputed to a person.
In cases of discrimination under the Employment Equality Acts, the person alleging the discrimination bears the initial burden of proving the primary facts upon which he or she relies in asserting that discrimination occurred.
Disability and ‘Stress’ under the Employment Equality Acts
The definition of disability has been interpreted broadly.
In An employee v. Bus Eireann (2003) ELR 351, it was held that a heart condition was a disability under the Acts.
In Mr. O v A Named Company DEC-E2003-052 it was held that work related stress may amount to a disability.
In A Government Department v A Worker EDA094, it was held that a condition that manifests in a minimal level of symptoms may be classified as a disability.
In the European cases of Chacon Navas v Eurest (C-13/05) and then in Jette Ring v Dansk (C-335/11) it was established that a disability was any condition that hinders full and effective participation in the workforce.
Stress at Work
The employee submitted medical certificates referring to her stress over two periods, from February to September 2015 and from April to August 2016. In addition, the Labour Court was furnished with a medical report from the employee’s doctor, which refers to the injuries to the employee due to this work-related stress as including, sleep disturbance, anxious all the time, tearful and emotionally fragile. It identifies also that the employee developed hypertension in early 2016 and that the events had led to moderate impact on her mental health. The report also referred to the probability of psychological ‘sequellae’ related to this episode in the employee’s life.
Employers Response to Claim that ‘Stress’ was a ‘Disability’
The employer argued that the employee is not a person with a disability, so she is not protected in that regard by the Acts. For them, stress is not a disability under the Acts.
In An Employer And A Worker EDA 1927 the Labour Court noted that the employee in that case had only identified a disability to his employer after his dismissal and that no medical evidence of disability had been provided prior to dismissal and, therefore, the dismissal was not discriminatory.
In the case of A Worker And a Government Department EDA094 the Court drew distinction between the ordinary human reaction to stressful situations and psychiatric illness and described suggestions that would blur the distinctions as an ‘absurdity’. That case emphasised the necessity for the employee to submit medical evidence in support of a claimed disability.
In the present case, the employer noted that, there is no evidence at all of alleged depression even in the medical report submitted and there is no evidence of any medication being prescribed for any of the alleged manifestations of stress.
Decision
In cases of discrimination under the Employment Equality Acts the employee bears the initial burden of proving the primary facts upon which he or she relies in asserting that discrimination occurred.
In the instant case that burden requires the employee to prove that she suffered from a disability within the meaning of the Acts.
As the Court of Justice noted in Chacon Navas v Eurest Coletividades SA (2006) ECR 1-6467 there is a distinction between sickness and disability. The Labour Court noted, as was pointed out by the employer, in A Worker v A Government Department (EDA 094) that suggestions which blur the distinction between ordinary human reaction to stressful situations and recognised psychiatric illness are an ‘absurdity’.
Conclusion
It is not sufficient, therefore, for the employee to rely on ‘stress’, however caused, as grounds for a claim to have a disability. It is necessary for the employee to show that he or she had a disability as defined above in the Acts. In circumstances where the fact of disability is in dispute, the Labour Court or Workplace Relations Commission can be assisted with evidence from medical practitioners. The failure of the employee to call such a practitioner in evidence means that the Labour Court was left to rely entirely on the written evidence provided. The medical certificates provided to the employer were scant on detail, referring only to ‘stress/work related stress’, which was of no assistance to the Labour Court.
For further information, please contact Crushell & Co.
