The claimant, a Portuguese national, has suffered from glaucoma and chronic uveitis in both her eyes since the age of 16.  At 23 years of age she lost total vision in her left eye.

The claimant worked for a small, family owned company as a janitor, initially working for 16 hours per week carrying out cleaning duties through a Steps to Work Programme.  She shortly thereafter began to help out in production and learnt how to make various products, including a stuffing sauce. Upon leaving the Steps to Work Programme the claimant entered into a written contract of employment with the respondent as a production operative. She subsequently underwent laser surgery on her left eye and was absent from work for a short time, later returning and undertaking all duties required of her without any issue.

When preparing the stuffing sauce the respondent changed from using frozen to fresh onions. When peeling the onions the claimant experienced a lot of discomfort and was unable to finish the task because of the pain and discomfort in her eyes. Consequently the claimant went on sick leave for some time. A letter from her doctor to the employer asked if she could be excused from peeling and chopping onions. After a number of meetings with Ms. Da Costa, the company gave her a letter confirming termination of her employment.

“It was apparent that the disadvantage suffered by the claimant had occurred despite the provision by the respondent of protective goggles… no adjustment whatsoever was thereafter suggested or discussed at any point with the claimant with a view to preventing the aggravation of her eye condition, with the respondent instead proceeding to dismiss the claimant due to her continuing health problems (glaucoma) and purported severe discomfort caused by the handling of onions. In the circumstances we find that the respondent has failed to prove that it complied with the duty to make a reasonable adjustment.”

The Tribunal accepted, on balance, that the adjustments “would have been of little or no cost, and despite the small size of the undertaking any associated cost was not disproportionate.” It concluded “no evidence was presented to support prohibitive cost, microbial cross contamination or absence of any safe area where chopped onions could have been left.” The Tribunal decided that Ms Da Costa “was unlawfully discriminated against because the company failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments, instead proceeding to dismiss her.”

The respondent failed to complete the statutory dismissal procedures and hence the dismissal was automatically unfair under Article 130A (1) ERO 1996. The tribunal unanimously held that the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed and that the respondent failed in its duty to make reasonable adjustments, pursuant to the DDA 1995, as amended. Ms. Da Costa was awarded compensation of £11,852.
https://www.equalityni.org/ECNI/media/ECNI/Cases%20and%20Settlements/2018/DaCosta-V-SummerGardenSaladsLtd.pdf