| Tittel: | Reduced Working Hours: Employer’s Duty to Accommodate Cases of Disability | | Ansvar: | Andrea Svensson | | Forfatter: | Svensson, Andrea  | | Materialtype: | Artikkel - elektronisk | | Utgitt: | Oslo : Karnov Group Norway, 2024 | | ISBN/ISSN: | 2704-1085 | | Serie: | Nordic journal of labour law ; 1/2024 | | Emneord: | Arbeidsrett / Arbeidstid / Diskriminering | | Stikkord: | Direktiv 2000/78/EF - Ikke-diskrimineringsdirektivet / HR-2022-390-A (Widerøe) | | Geografiske emneord: | Danmark / Finland / Norden / Norge / Sverige | | Note: | KARNOV-2024-11 | | Innhold: | The consequence of an employer not adequately accommodating cases of disability can be significant. In many cases, employees are terminated because the employer claims an incapacity to provide such accommodations. While the regulations explicitly state that employers are obligated to provide accommodations for disability, the practical scope of this duty remains uncertain.
In this article, I delve into the parameters of the employer's duty to provide accommodations, particularly when the employer is obliged to adjust working hours for an employee with a disability. Whether an employer must accommodate is a case-by-case assessment. Therefore, it is challenging to establish clear limits for the duty to accommodate. In this article, I attempt to systematize, with the help of legal precedents, various types of situations in which an employer must provide accommodations. For some situations, it must be assumed that the employer has a broader duty to accommodate than for others.
An example of such a case can be found in the ruling from the Norwegian Supreme Court in HR-2022-390-A (Widerøe). The decision has sparked discussions, and there is little general guidance that can be drawn from the ruling with applicability to other cases involving accommodation. Additionally, the ruling lacks a foundation in international law. In this article, I delve into this issue, evaluating how Norwegian accommodation rules compare with provisions in, among others, Directive 2000/78/EC and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Based on this analysis, I criticize the Supreme Court's decision on the basis that they should have considered the case in light of international law |
|
|