Naas Hospital ordered to pay worker in disability discrimination case

NAAS General Hospital has been ordered to pay a former catering employee €2,500 after the Work Relations Committee (WRC) found that it failed to adequately consider reasonable accommodation for her disability while she was on sick leave.

The WRC found that the hospital discriminated against multitask attendant Eva Marie McEvoy by failing to fully assess whether suitable duties could be found outside the catering department following a back injury.

Ms McEvoy, who began working in the hospital's catering department in 2023, injured her back in March 2025 and remained on sick leave for several months.

Her GP certified her fit to return to work on light duties from 16 June 2025, but hospital management insisted that an occupational health assessment be completed before she could resume work.

Following an occupational health review in late June, Ms McEvoy was deemed unfit to return to her normal role because of restrictions on lifting, bending and pulling. However, the WRC stated she could potentially return if suitable modified duties were available.

Hospital management maintained that no light duties existed within the catering department due to the physical demands of the role.

The WRC accepted that position but found that the hospital failed to promptly consider whether temporary duties elsewhere in the hospital could accommodate the employee's restrictions.

The adjudication officer noted that while the catering manager lacked authority to identify alternative roles outside her department, HR had been aware from early July 2025 that the employee could not safely return to catering work.

Despite this, broader accommodation options were not explored until after Ms McEvoy lodged her complaint with the WRC.

‘The duty on the Respondent to provide reasonable accommodation is proactive in nature,’ the decision states, concluding that the hospital failed to carry out a comprehensive assessment of possible accommodations during the relevant period.

The WRC found that Ms McEvoy had a disability within the meaning of the Employment Equality Acts from the time an occupational health report confirmed she was suffering from a discogenic disorder accompanied by persistent lower back pain and sciatica.

However, the adjudication officer rejected several other elements of Ms McEvoy's complaint. The WRC found that requiring her to continue submitting medical certificates while she remained unable to perform her normal duties did not amount to discrimination.

Likewise, the hospital's suggestion that she obtain an independent medical report after disputing aspects of the occupational health assessment was found to be standard practice and not discriminatory.

The WRC also dismissed Ms McEvoy's separate claim of victimisation, concluding that she had not carried out a "protected act" under the Employment Equality Acts that would support such a claim.

In evidence, the Health Service Executive, representing Naas General Hospital, argued that the catering role was physically demanding and that every shift required lifting, pushing, pulling or bending.

It maintained that allowing the employee to avoid those tasks would have imposed a disproportionate burden on colleagues and could have compromised workplace safety.

The hospital further argued that it had followed its absence management procedures, acted on occupational health advice and ultimately reviewed alternative positions before Ms McEvoy was certified fit to return to her full duties in August 2025.

While accepting many of the hospital's arguments, the WRC ruled that its failure to examine accommodation options beyond the catering department during July 2025 breached its obligations under the Employment Equality Acts.

The WRC ordered Naas General Hospital to pay Ms McEvoy €2,500 in compensation for the effects of the discrimination.