A cinema worker who claimed his employer failed to provide him with the reasonable accommodations he required because of his autism and mental health issues has had a €12,000 Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) award increased to €29,000. Dylan O’Riordan and Omniplex Cork Ltd had both appealed the October 2024 WRC decision. However, the Labour Court has found that while the company sought to provide some accommodations, and its obligation to provide supports was not “unlimited”, it had not given any evidence to suggest the supports it failed to provide would have represented an undue burden.The court, chaired by Alan Haugh, said it was increasing the award to O’Riordan on the basis of a European Court of Justice case – Von Colson v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen – which emphasised that awards for the effects of discrimination should be “effective, dissuasive and proportionate”.O’Riordan had started work at the cinema as a part-time supervisor in March 2022 and said he had made both the company and his general manager aware of his disability during the recruitment process.Six months later, he was promoted to head supervisor on a part-time basis and in March 2023 became a full-time duty manager on a salary of €29,000 per year.By the summer of 2022, however, he had been suffering a decline in his mental health and was concerned he might experience an autistic shutdown. He requested reasonable accommodation around his roster and certain aspects of his work environment. He repeated the request in early 2023.That October, he was about to finish a day shift when it became apparent a projector was not working. The cinema manager was at another site, and during efforts to address the problem, O’Riordan told her over the phone that he had to leave at his scheduled time of 5.30pm. He left shortly after that with the problem unresolved.The incident prompted an email exchange regarding his health, during which O’Riordan noted he had more than once requested accommodations he felt would help him. This included having his two weekly days off together and avoiding late shifts at the end of which he had to cash up and perform other duties he found stressful.Within a matter of days, he commenced a period of sick leave but continued to engage with management.In January 2024, he was referred by his employer to occupational health consultants Medmark, and the following month, he met a company HR manager to discuss Medmark’s recommendations. These included facilitating O’Riordan’s desire to avoid late shifts, rostering him for two days off at a time and several other supports, including access to a quiet room, noise-cancelling headphones and other measures.Efforts were made by the company, the court heard, to address the recommendations. However, three suggestions regarding rostering were rejected by the complainant as he did not feel they adequately addressed his concerns.O’Riordan, who told the court his general manager had told him she did not regard autism as a disability but rather as a “superpower”, subsequently ceased to engage with the company. In April, he made a formal complaint of discrimination, and in June, he resigned. In deciding to more than double the compensation payment, the court said he had articulated his rostering requests clearly. It said that while these had been broadly in line with the recommendations of the company’s own consultants, no adequate explanation had been provided for the “considerable delay” in “engaging meaningfully” about them or why they were not ultimately acceded to.