Workplace Relations Commission reaffirms that employers may rely on medical certificates certifying an employee unfit for work when assessing requests for accommodation
Authors: Aoife Bradley, Partner and Marcus Dunne, Associate
On 24 September 2026, the Workplace Relations Commission (“WRC”) published its decision in Katarine Baraba v Sysco Foods Ireland Unlimited Company (ADJ-00058288), in which the Complainant alleged disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, harassment, and victimisation under the Employment Equality Acts 1998–2015 (“EEA”).
The employee sought to work remotely while recovering from an injury, despite submitting medical certificates stating that she was unfit for work and claiming Illness Benefit.
The WRC held that the employer was entitled to rely on the medical evidence provided and was not required to provide an accommodation that was inconsistent with the medical evidence provided to it.
This decision of the WRC concerns a complaint under the EEA alleging disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation, harassment, and victimisation.
In Ireland, under section 16 of the EEA, an employer is legally required to provide “reasonable accommodation” for employees with a disability to facilitate their participation in employment. Reasonable accommodation is not required where it would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer. Such accommodations commonly include job modifications and changes to the workplace.
In order to advance claims of this nature under section 85A of the EEA, the Complainant must first establish facts from which discrimination may be presumed before the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent. In this case, the Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case under section 85A of the EEA and the complaint was ultimately dismissed in its entirety.
The Complainant suffered an injury on 8 September 2024 which resulted in her being unable to attend work. It was accepted by the parties that the Complainant had a disability for the purposes of the EEA.
The Complainant provided a letter from her doctor dated 7 October 2024 which said that she was unfit for work. The Complainant submitted further medical certificates on a weekly basis between 29 November 2024 and 14 February 2025, each stating that the Complainant was unfit to attend work.
On 27 January 2025, the Complainant submitted two contradictory medical certificates to the Respondent. The first certificate indicated that the Complainant could work remotely but was unfit to commute. The second certificate indicated that the Complainant was unfit for work.
The Complainant sought, during this period of certified illness between 8 October 2024 and 14 February 2025, to work remotely and alleged that this request constituted a “reasonable accommodation”. It was the Complainant’s position that she was unfit to commute to work but was fit and able to work remotely from home.
It was the Respondent’s position, and the position accepted by the Adjudication Officer, that the Complainant’s capacity to work remotely was not reflected in the medical evidence provided, which stated that she was “unfit to attend work”, save for the medical certificate submitted on 27 January 2025 that was contradicted by another medical certificate provided on the same day.
The Respondent refused the Complainant’s request for remote working on the basis that the Complainant cannot work if she is deemed medically unfit to work, regardless of whether she is at home or in the office.
The Respondent denied that the Complainant ever sought a reasonable accommodation in respect of remote working. Given that the medical certificates provided did not support the requests made by the Complainant to work remotely, no reasonable accommodation could be made for her.
In assessing the claim, the Adjudication Officer examined the burden of proof under section 85A of the EEA. It was accepted that the Respondent, as an employer, is entitled to rely on medical certificates and evidence provided by an employee. As the Complainant was officially certified as unfit for work, the Respondent could not reasonably be expected to provide reasonable accommodation that would contradict the medical evidence.
Commentary
This decision provides useful guidance for employers managing requests for accommodation during periods of certified sickness absence. It also highlights that an employer is entitled to and should rely on medical evidence in determining an employee’s fitness to work. Where the medical evidence/certificate certifies an employee as unfit for work, an employer is not required to look behind it or facilitate an arrangement that is inconsistent with that evidence.
The decision should not, however, be interpreted as relieving employers of their broader obligations under the Employment Equality Acts. Where medical evidence is unclear, conflicting or suggests that an employee may be capable of working with adjustments, employers should continue to engage with the employee, seek clarification where appropriate—including through occupational health where necessary—and assess reasonable accommodation on the particular facts of the case.
This case highlights the importance for employers to follow medical guidance when assessing an employee’s fitness to work, and that doing so can be relied upon to defend their decision to allow the employee to return to work, or not.
