Arrow left dark
Newsletter icon SUBSCRIBE

Legal duties towards disabled students clarified in Supreme Court equality case

Clock icon Reading time: 4 minutes

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has welcomed a landmark Supreme Court ruling that clarifies the rights of disabled students to receive accommodations within the education system.

Image

About this case:

The test case, brought by dyslexic student Kim Cahill, focused on the nature of the duties owed by the Minister for Education towards disabled students, and in particular the scope of the duty to make reasonable accommodations for disabled persons.

The Commission, which provided legal representation to Ms Cahill, argued that the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015 should be interpreted broadly so as to promote maximum accessibility for persons with disabilities.

Handing down the judgment in Kim Cahill v Minister for Education and Science, Mr Justice MacMenamin agreed the legal provisions in question “should be given a broad and generous interpretation”.

Ms Cahill, who sat her Leaving Certificate in 2001, had obtained an exemption solely on the assessment of spelling and grammar elements of language subjects due to her dyslexia.

However, when her Leaving Certificate was issued, it carried an explanatory note stating that certain parts of the exam had not been assessed, and revealing her disability.

Giving evidence to the court, Ms Cahill said her Leaving Certificate would reveal her disability to future employers against her wishes and potentially place her at risk of further discrimination.

She had no choice about the nature of the adjustments provided and was refused the option of extra time, a reader or the provision of a quiet room, accommodations which would not have been highlighted on her Leaving Certificate had they been provided.

The Equality Tribunal upheld Ms Cahill’s original complaint and directed that the Minister pay €6,000 in light of the distress caused and issue a new Leaving Certificate without the notation. However, this decision was subsequently appealed through the Circuit Court and the High Court to today’s Supreme Court ruling.

The Commission’s legal team advanced the test case on two key legal issues:

  1. Whether the Minister was exempt from the obligation to provide reasonable accommodations as had been found in the Circuit and High Court. This finding has now been unambiguously overturned by today’s judgment with the effect that it is now beyond dispute that the Minister for Education is subject to the requirement to provide reasonable accommodations in the delivery of educational services under the Education Act 1998. Had the decisions of the Circuit and High Court not been overturned, the failure of the Minister to provide basic services to persons with disabilities such as a failure to provide the basic equipment necessary for a child to access learning such as hearing aids or braille machines could not have been challenged as a breach of a duty to provide reasonable accommodations under the Equal Status Acts. The significance of today’s decision in clarifying the rights of students with disabilities to receive accommodations within the education system cannot be overstated.

    1. The interpretation of the term ‘reasonable’ adopted by the lower courts, was not in keeping with the remedial social purpose of the Equal Status Acts and radically limited the duty to provide accommodations. Today, the court unanimously agreed that there had been an error of law and the judgment opens up the way for other students with disabilities in Ms Cahill’s position to rely on the Equal Status Acts in enforcing a right to accommodations in the provision of educational services. Notwithstanding that the Supreme Court agreed that the wrong legal test had been identified in the lower courts, the Court found that on the evidence in this case, there had been no breach of the duty properly construed insofar as the provision of the exemption with the notation was concerned.

      2. Emily Logan, chief commissioner of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, said: “The Commission welcomes the court’s clarification of these fundamentally important issues of equality law, and its emphatic ruling that the Minister for Education continues to owe duties to make reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities, notwithstanding its separate obligations to provide support services under the Education Act 1998. It notes the fact the court welcomed further opportunities to clarify what is complex law in the future for the benefit of persons with a disability.

      “The rights of persons with disabilities to be provided with an equal playing field in their studies and exams, work lives and personal lives remain to be fully vindicated.

      “It takes resilience and determination to challenge discrimination, but these kinds of challenges, such as that taken by Kim Cahill, are vital to inspiring change, and building a more equal society.”

      Share icon
      Share this article: