The Supreme Court has delivered a significant ruling on the Minister of Education’s duties to accommodate students with disabilities under Irish equality legislation. The applicant, Kim Cahill, was challenging the fact that certain exemptions she had availed of by reason of her dyslexia had been marked on her Leaving Certificate script. Representation was provided by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC).
Ms Cahill’s case sought to ascertain the nature and scope of the duties owed towards students with disabilities by the Minister of Education under sections 3 and 4 of the Equal Status Acts 2000 - 2015. Section 3 designates disability as a ground of unlawful discrimination. Section 4 imposes an obligation on those providing services to do ‘all that is reasonable to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability’. When Ms Cahill sat the Leaving Certificate in 2001, she had obtained an exemption on spelling and grammar in language subjects due to her dyslexia. Her results ultimately contained an explanatory note that certain parts of the examination had not been assessed. Ms Cahill complained to the then Equality Tribunal that this measure was discriminatory, and represented a failure to make reasonable accommodation. It was argued that the note would reveal her disability to her future employers against her wishes, thus potentially exposing her to future discrimination, and that she had not been offered a choice of adjustments which would not be disclosed, for example extra time or a reader. The Equality Tribunal upheld her complaint and she was awarded €6,000.
The respondent, the Minister for Education, successfully appealed this finding to the Circuit Court and then the High Court. The Circuit Court and the High Court both ruled that the Minister was exempt from the obligation to make reasonable accommodations in providing services under the Educations Acts 1998. In the Supreme Court, IHREC argued that the Court should interpret the Minister’s duties to give effect to maximum accessibility so that students with a disability can fully participate in education and other benefits.
Delivering judgment for the Supreme Court, Justice MacMenamin dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts’ finding that the appellant had not established discrimination, and upholding the Minister’s argument that the annotation’s purpose was to preserve the integrity of the examinations system. However, it was held that the provisions of the Equal Status Act should be given a broad and generous interpretation, as the long title of the Act “conveys that it is intended to promote equality and provide mechanisms of...remedying certain acts of discrimination”. The Equal Status Acts could therefore be interpreted as applying to the Minister for Education. Justice MacMenamin clarified that whereas the Circuit Court and High Court had dealt with Section 4 as a question of reasonable accommodation, the section required the respondent to do “all that is reasonable” by providing special treatment or facilities if, without such facilities, it would be impossible or unduly difficult for the person to avail himself or herself of a service. However, Justice MacMenamin found that the trial judges had not erred in findings of law or fact, and the appeal was dismissed.
Click here for IHREC’s statement on the case.
Click here for Justice MacMenamin’s judgment.