Balancing Work and Life for Workers with Disabilities

A Norwegian version of this blog post is published in the popular science newspaper Forskning.no: Dette er arbeidsgiver forpliktet til å gjøre

***

Achieving a good work-life balance is crucial for all workers, and particularly important for workers with disabilities. In addition to managing their work and home lives, they must also manage issues related to their impairment. This may include obtaining appropriate support at work or at home, monitoring and ensuring treatment for health conditions, and dealing with any limitations their impairment brings, such as fatigue or pain. Achieving a good work-life balance for workers with disabilities must therefore allow individuals sufficient time and energy to manage the disability-related dimensions to their lives. 

Disability anti-discrimination law, and the obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation, are relevant in the context of work-life balance. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as well as the Norwegian General Equality and Anti-Discrimination Act, prohibit disability discrimination, and recognise an unjustified denial of a reasonable accommodation as a form of disability discrimination.  

EU law also establishes an obligation to provide reasonable accommodations in the context of employment in Article 5 of the Employment Equality Directive (2000/78). Directive 2000/78/EC is not incorporated into the EEA agreement, but Norway has decided that the Directive should be implemented into Norwegian law. The Norwegian Supreme Court has clarified that when interpreting national law also the case law concerning the Directive has to be taken into account. 

The Directive itself provides some guidance as to kind of reasonable accommodation measures that can be required. It gives the following examples: ‘adapting premises and equipment, patterns of working time, the distribution of tasks or the provision of training or integration resources’ (Recital 21). In interpreting the Directive, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has recognised that reasonable accommodations can take the form of organisational measures, material measures and personal assistance. The following text explores the kind of actions which have been recognised as reasonable accommodations by the Court. 

Reasonable Accommodation Under EU Law 

A reduction in working time was first explicitly recognised as a form of reasonable accommodation in Joined Cases C-335/11 and C-337/11. In that case the Court held ‘a reduction in working hours could be regarded as an accommodation ... in a case in which reduced working hours made it possible for the worker to continue employment’ (1). 

A reassignment of tasks was later recognised as a possible accommodation by the Court. In the relevant case, a factory assembly worker in this case had been assigned, in priority to other workers, tasks that exposed her to fewer health risks. She nevertheless experienced problems and was dismissed because of her low productivity, poor multi-tasking skills and absenteeism. The CJEU noted that it was for the national courts to determine whether the ‘adjustments were sufficient to be regarded as reasonable accommodation’ (2). This implies that assigning a worker with a disability tasks which are less likely to cause damage to their health, and giving such workers priority over workers without a disability in assigning such tasks, is one form of reasonable accommodation. 

For many persons with disabilities employment is only possible if they are provided with a reasonable accommodation.

- Lisa Waddington

In another case, the CJEU found that the reasonable accommodation obligation extended to appointing a worker to a completely new position if, as a result of their disability, they become unable to carry out the work which they were initially employed to do, including in the case of a worker appointed to a training position (3). However, the Court noted that this form of accommodation would only be available where there was at least one vacancy that the worker in question was capable of doing.  

In two cases involving individuals with sensory impairments the CJEU has recognised that the provision of assistive devices can be a form of reasonable accommodation. In the first case, which concerned a prison guard with a hearing impairment, the Court recognised that allowing a worker to use a hearing aid, so that they were able to carry out their tasks, was a form of reasonable accommodation (4). Similarly, in another case, the Court held that providing a person who was blind, and who worked as a juror, to use ‘medico-technical’ equipment when doing her job, could be a form of reasonable accommodation (5). 

Also, the CJEU has recognised a further kind of reasonable accommodation when it referred to ‘personal ... assistance’, as well as material and organisational measures (6). 

Reasonable Accommodations and Work-Life Balance 

For many persons with disabilities employment is only possible if they are provided with a reasonable accommodation. In that most fundamental respect, accommodations are required to bring the ‘work’ part into the ‘work-life balance’ equation. Some accommodations, such as a reduction in working time, clearly enable a worker to invest more time and energy in their home and private life.  

However, all of the accommodations mentioned above are intended to enable a worker with a disability to carry out their work to the same degree, and to the same standard, as workers without disabilities. The accommodations should therefore remove the need for workers with disabilities to spend additional time and effort, compared to other workers, to complete their work. This contributes to allowing workers with disabilities to achieve a work-life balance. 

*** 

This blog is partly based on research carried out by the author for the report Court practices regarding disability discrimination, including reasonable accommodation, at EU and Member State level, and in light of the UN CRPD, European Commission, 2023.

1. Joined Cases C-335/11 and C-337/11 HK Danmark (Ring and Skouboe Werge) 
2. Case C-397/18 DW v Nobel Plastiques Ibéria SA 
3. C-485/20 XXXX v HR Rail 
4. Case C-795/199 XX v Tartu Vangla 
5. Case C-824/19 TC, UB v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, VA 
6. C-824/19 TC, UB v Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, VA