A retailer has been directed to pay €25,000 in compensation for disability discrimination to a worker with Alzheimer’s whose career ended after a manager said he “noticed a deterioration” and put him on sick leave. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruled the man’s former employer, an unidentified “large retail store” in the midlands, failed to afford the worker reasonable accommodation for his disability in breach of the Employment Equality Act 1998. Doctors had advised it would be best for the man to continue with a regular work routine following his diagnosis with Alzheimer’s disease in 2022, the tribunal was told. The man had been an employee of the company since 2005, and had spent over a decade in a managerial post when his medical condition was first identified. Lawyers acting for the worker argued he had been subjected to harassment within a month of his diagnosis, when it was alleged a remark was made to him that he was “working too slowly”. It was further alleged the retailer discriminated against the man when he was demoted from his managerial post to sales assistant a year and a half after the diagnosis. Aer Lingus job cuts and Ryanair’s profits plunge - what is happening in the Irish aviation sector? Listen | 41:54The business denied discriminating against the man in any regard, with its representative arguing he was “assisted until declared medically unfit”. The man’s partner told the WRC she “accepted that a time would come when he needed to stop working”, but that he intended to continue working a full week. One of the recommendations by occupational health was to set out written instructions for work, including “planograms” of how the shelves were to be stocked, the tribunal heard. This was not done, however, with a deputy store manager telling the tribunal there was no room to post up the instructions without blocking prices. A grocery manager said he observed the complainant to “wander off tasks occasionally” and to leave stock on the floor, which was a “potential hazard”. A store manager said he sought a detailed medical report in June 2025 as he had noticed a “deterioration” in the claimant’s work and “did not want an incident to arise with the store left liable”. He put the claimant on paid sick leave “for his own wellbeing”, he said. In July 2025, the complainant attended a specialist who sent a report to the store manager confirming he was “fit to work in his current role with accommodations”, the tribunal was told. However, a further occupational health review later that month “questioned whether he was fit”. It said he was “unlikely fit for work” but left the final decision up to management, the tribunal heard. Adjudication officer Shay Clinton ruled that the employer had failed to provide reasonable accommodation for the worker’s disability, and directed it to pay €25,000 in compensation. There seemed to be “no plan or enquiries made on what appropriate support was available” for the worker apart from sending him to occupational health and some advice from HR, Mr Clinton wrote. This brought about a “vacuum” where “matters unfolded on an ad-hoc basis without any expertise or independent assessment on appropriate adaptations”, Clinton added. “Undoubtedly, the store management were doing their best, although without the necessary expertise or support,” Clinton wrote. Clinton found the worker was too late to pursue a discrimination complaint over his reduction in grade. The claim of harassment was also “too remote” and had not been substantiated in evidence, he wrote.Cathy McGrady appeared for the claimant, instructed by Farell McElwee Solicitors in the matter. The company was represented by Dajana Sinik from business group Ibec.