The Federal Circuit Court has ruled that Corrective Services NSW unlawfully discriminated against Caryn Huntley, an employee, who suffered from Crohn’s Disease and idiopathic hypersomnolance by failing to make “reasonable adjustments”.
While the Court found a number of flaws in Corrective Services NSW’s handling of the medical condition and subsequent termination, it focussed on the employer’s obligations around “reasonable adjustments”. Suffering the disease and sleep disorder (“disabilities” for the purposes of disability discrimination legislation), Ms Huntley had provided medical evidence to the employer regarding her ability to perform her role which, relevantly, included some travel.
The Court found the employer had misinterpreted that evidence when it determined
Ms Huntley should be medically retired because she was unable to travel for more than 30 minutes. On the contrary, that medical evidence asserted Ms Huntley could take trips greater than 30 minutes, so long as she was able to take a break along the way. A reasonable adjustment to make?
The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (Act) provides that an employer will not have unlawfully discriminated against an employee if, because of the disability, the employee would be unable to carry out the inherent requirements of the job even if the employer made reasonable adjustments for that employee. Under the Act, an adjustment is reasonable unless making it would impose an unjustifiable hardship on the employer.
So, did Corrective Services NSW make reasonable adjustments? Basing its decision on the fact the employer had misinterpreted the medical evidence presented by Ms Huntley, had considered the condition an “illness” rather than a “disability” (the latter meaning the disability discrimination legislation was relevant) and subsequently terminated the employment, the Court said no.
Corrective Services NSW had failed to: consider the inherent requirements of the role; consider any reasonable adjustments that could be made to assist the employee to perform the inherent requirements; and implement those adjustments. Relevantly, the employer was ordered to pay compensation for pain and suffering and breach of contract to the tune of over $170k plus interest.
Lessons learned: employers ought to carefully consider whether an employee’s illness or medical condition is a “disability” and, if so, take steps to comply with the obligations which arise from the disability discrimination legislation. A failure to do so could be costly.