In case no. 20220755, a company dismissed a disabled employee after seeking various accommodations to enable him to perform his job. However, after several meetings with the municipality and the employee's doctor in an attempt to make the necessary changes to the workplace and work tasks, and had proposed flexible working and reduced working hours of 16.5 hours per week to safeguard his job, the employee again went on sick leave despite the measures taken, and the company dismissed him.

The Dismissal Board stated that the company adopted many measures to adapt the workplace and duties to the disabled employee and therefore had not violated his obligation to find a reasonable accommodation.

Recently, the Regional Supreme Court also ruled on a case concerning the dismissal of an employee with an aggravated disability, for whom the company had taken various corrective measures concerning his disability.

After the disability had worsened, the company sought further adaptations but, not finding them, dismissed the employee. 

The case went to the Supreme Court, which examined two fundamental questions: whether the dismissal had been communicated because of the disability and, in this context, whether the employer had fulfilled its duty to organise the work appropriately. 

The answer was in the affirmative on both questions. 

The Court stated that the employer fulfilled its duty to adapt under Section 2a of the Discrimination Act. Therefore, her dismissal was justified as the employee was no longer competent and available to perform the duties.

Both decisions are relevant as they highlight the extent of the employer's duty to take measures to adapt work to employees with disabilities.

You can find here an interesting decision of the Labour Court of Appeal in Antwerp in a case of multiple discrimination.