Anne O'Connell Solicitors | View firm profile
In Kim Dempsey v Irish Prison Service (ADJ-00043513) the Complainant brought a complaint under section 77 of the Employment Equality Acts (as amended) against her employer Irish Prison Service, for failing to provide her with reasonable accommodation following a workplace incident that left her unable to carry out her regular duties.
Facts:
The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent as a prison officer in 2008. In May 2017 while working for the Respondent, the Complainant suffered multiple injuries as a result of a serious assault by a prisoner. Since the incident the Complainant has suffered with chronic and ongoing back pain requiring her to undergo specialist treatment. She has been medically advised that she is not fit for manual duties and that she should return to work in an office-based capacity. The Complainant has not returned to work since this incident and has remained on sick leave since 2017.
It seems that while the Complainant was on sick leave, she obtained the qualifications for the role of Work Training Officer Integrated Sentence Management (“WTO”) and was later offered a position in Cloverhill prison but the Complainant submitted she was never permitted to start this role. The duties of the WTO were in dispute in the case.
In summary, the Respondent argued it was not possible to re-employ the Complainant as a WTO/Prison Officer, as all positions involved prisoner contact or the potential for prisoner contact in conflict type scenarios. The Complainant on the other hand argued the role of WTO is a primarily office based role albeit that in some understaffed prisons such as Cloverhill, some WTO’s do not perform the WTO role full time due to having to fill in for staff shortages elsewhere in the prison.
However, it was the Complainants position that there are full time WTO positions available in other prisons that do not entail carrying out general prison officer duties and if they do, this arises only exceptionally and therefore any such requirement could be dealt with by way of a reasonable accommodation.
It is worth noting that in the Complainant’s submission reference was made to the case of XXX v. HR Rail SA C-485/20 (10th February 2022) where the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) handed down a judgement in the context of a worker becoming permanently incapable of remaining in their job because of the onset of a disability. The CJEU recognised in that case that the concept of reasonable accommodation may include reassignment to another job within the undertaking for which the worker has the necessary competence, capability and availability and where such reassignment would not impose a disproportionate burden. The CJEU recognising that the possibility of assigning the person to another job was aimed at a situation where there is “at least one vacancy” which the worker concerned would be able to occupy, so as not to impose a disproportionate burden on the employer.
Decision:
WRC Adjudication Officer Jim Dolan upheld the Complainant’s claim. In his decision he quoted detailed sections of the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63 which examined the obligations of an employer to provide reasonable accommodation for an employee with a disability. See a link to our previous article on the Nano Nagle judgment here (https://aocsolicitors.ie/landmark-supreme-court-decision-on-the-obligation-to-provide-reasonable-accommodation-to-employees-with-disabilities/).
The Adjudicator also referred to the judgment in Robert Cunningham and Irish Prison Service [2020] IEHC 282 where Mr Justice Barr commented that it was clear from the decision in the Nano Nagle case, that there has been a “paradigm shift” in the way disability is to be viewed in European and Irish law. Mr. Justice Barr commented that the legislation and case law clearly provide “rights of real substance to persons of disability, who wish to enter or remain in work”.
The Adjudication Officer ordered the Respondent to pay compensation to the Complainant in the sum of €60,000. He also made an order to reasonably accommodate the Complainant by finding a position which will permit her continued employment as a prison officer within three months.
While the Adjudicator did not directly comment on the Complainant’s reference to the XXX case (which post dates Nano Nagle), the order to find a position which will permit the employee’s continued employment as a prison officer within three months is arguably consistent with that Judgement.
It is also worth noting that in his decision the Adjudicator remarked upon the fact the Complaint had not been invited to attend a conference that had taken place to discuss her possible return to work. He commented that he believed she should have been invited to attend that conference. The Adjudicator ordered that the Complainant should be included in any discussion/decision in the tasking of finding her a position.
Takeaway for Employers:
In so far as the order to find a position within three months is concerned, it is worth pointing out that the Respondent in this case was a large public body where the likelihood of an alternative position being available may be higher than in a small private business. It does not necessarily follow that a similar order would be made in respect of a smaller organisation.
Nonetheless, this decision serves as an important reminder that the right of reasonable accommodation is a right of “real substance” and employers should be mindful of their duty to provide reasonable accommodation measures to employees unless the measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer.
Link: https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2025/november/adj-00043513.html
Authors- Abigail Ansell, Laura Killelea
2nd January 2026
AOC Solicitors
19-22 Baggot Street Lower
Dublin 2