“Sick Cancer Employee Awarded €50,000”

The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) has granted a substantial €50,000 to a senior IT professional, Mark Lawlor, who claimed his employment was discontinued while he was unable to work due to cancer. Mr Lawlor had been the chief technical officer at DNA IT Solutions since July 2018, earning a monthly gross salary of €7,500. He began cancer treatment following a diagnosis in February 2021.

During his treatment, which spanned from March until October, Mr Lawlor was unable to work and thus took sick leave. However, he resumed work on a part-time basis after his treatment, with his working hours increased to three days a week in January 2022.

Unfortunately, Mr Lawlor had to resort to sick leave again in August 2022. By November of the same year, he assured DNA IT Solutions, based on a medical report from his consultant, that he aimed to resume work in January 2023, if his health allowed.

Mr Lawlor made a formal complaint to the WRC in February 2023, represented by Setanta Landers of Setanta Solicitors, after learning from his company that his prolonged absence had led to significant technical voids which they had addressed by reassigning tasks to current and new staff. As a result of these rearrangements, his position was rendered redundant.

In their defence, DNA IT Solutions, with Alastair Purdy of Alastair Purdy & Co Solicitors as their representative, acknowledged that Mr Lawlor had a disability but rejected accusations of discrimination. They presented to the WRC that Mr Lawlor was not unfairly discharged and that effort was made to reasonably accommodate him in his workplace, refuting any claims of detrimental treatment.

In August of the previous year, Mr Lawlor enquired of his medical team about his potential return to his workplace. He was furnished with a formal letter from his medical institution, permitting him to resume employment, contingent on his wellbeing. This document was subsequently passed on to his operations superior.

A dispute arose when he attempted to transition back to full-time work. The operations superior suggested a gradual increase in hours to safeguard his health, proposing an addition of just one working day per week.

By July of 2022, Mr Lawlor bore adverse reactions to a new medical treatment. His employer, understandingly, issued him a two-week leave, which he availed. But, the severity of the side-effects provoked by the new drugs later necessitated a transformation to long-term sick leave.

The WRC learned that a different medication, effective at a lower dose, ameliorated his treatment’s adverse side-effects. DNA Solutions maintained that Mr Lawlor readily accepted this work configuration and was satisfied.

In defence, the respondent confirmed that Mr Lawlor was facilitated to resume work at his convenience. They added that his abilities were superior, making it challenging to find a match for his expertise level. The defendant further claimed that they never crossed boundaries by terminating his contract or forcing him into part-time employment.

WRC officer Maria Kelly in her adjudication agreed that the defendant had indeed made executive decisions regarding Mr Lawlor’s schedule and client-related activities. However, she found that they had erred in not assessing Mr Lawlor’s fitness to hold the chief technical officer title or identifying possible measures that could enable his full participation.

According to Ms Kelly, had DNA Solutions adequately assessed Mr Lawlor’s ability to execute his responsibilities as a chief technical officer in October 2021 adequately, it is conceivable that he could have drawn his complete salary between October 2021 and September 2022’s conclusion. Conversely, this might have not been the case.

Ms Kelly declared, “From Mr Lawlor’s own testimony, he was unfit to resume work from October 2022 all the way to January 2023, therefore, he was on medical leave during that duration.” She added, “Given the overall context, I deem it suitable to grant the plaintiff a compensation sum of €50,000, as a remedy for the distress caused by the discriminatory behaviour.”

Condividi