Mental Health in the Workplace: 6 Common Employer Mistakes That Can Lead to WRC Claims

Mental health and employee wellbeing continue to be important considerations for employers. While many organisations have introduced wellbeing initiatives, Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs) and mental health policies, recent Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) and Labour Court decisions highlight that these measures alone may not be enough to protect employers from legal claims.

Employers have a responsibility to take employee health and safety seriously, including mental health. Where an employee is experiencing a mental health difficulty, this can also trigger additional obligations under the Employment Equality Acts, particularly where the condition amounts to a disability and reasonable accommodation is required.

Recent employment law decisions demonstrate how employers can find themselves exposed to significant compensation awards, not necessarily because an employee experiences a mental health condition, but because of how the employer responds to it.

From failing to consider reasonable accommodation to delaying occupational health assessments and mishandling workplace complaints, there are a number of recurring mistakes that employers should be aware of.

We look at six important lessons from recent case law and the practical steps employers can take to manage mental health concerns more effectively.

1. Failing to properly consider reasonable accommodation

Under the Employment Equality Acts 1998, as amended, disability is one of the nine protected grounds. The definition of disability is broad and can include mental health conditions, depending on the circumstances.

Where an employee has a disability, employers are required to consider appropriate measures, commonly referred to as reasonable accommodation, to enable the employee to participate in and continue their employment, unless doing so would impose a disproportionate burden.

A common mistake is assuming that reasonable accommodation only applies where an employee has a physical disability or has specifically requested adjustments.

In Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63, the Supreme Court confirmed that employers must genuinely consider the range of reasonable measures available to support an employee with a disability. This can include adjustments to working arrangements and the redistribution of certain duties, where appropriate. Employers are not required to create an entirely new role, but they cannot simply conclude that an employee is unable to perform their job without properly considering possible adjustments.

This principle is equally relevant when managing employees with mental health conditions.

In Gourley v Mason Hayes & Curran LLP, ADJ 00049048 (2024), an employee who had long Covid and associated mental health difficulties raised concerns about his condition and requested reasonable accommodation after performance issues arose during his probationary period.

Although the WRC did not uphold his discriminatory dismissal complaint, it found in his favour in relation to the failure to provide reasonable accommodation. The employer was criticised for not properly assessing whether measures could have been put in place to allow him to continue in employment. The employee was awarded €5,000 and the employer was directed to review its policy and provide management training.

What employers should do:

• Do not assume that an employee's request for flexible hours, remote working or a change in duties is simply a general work life balance request. Consider whether it may also be a request for reasonable accommodation.
• Explore different options, including adjusted hours, phased returns, temporary changes to duties or reporting arrangements.
• Consult with the employee to understand the difficulties they are experiencing and the adjustments that may help.
• Document the options considered and the reasons for accepting or declining any proposed adjustments.

2. Relying on occupational health advice without taking action

Occupational health assessments can be extremely useful when managing mental health concerns, long term absence and requests for reasonable accommodation.

However, referring an employee to occupational health does not automatically discharge an employer's responsibilities. The advice received must be considered, followed up and translated into practical action where appropriate.

In Dylan O'Riordan v Omniplex Cork Ltd, EDA 2620 (2026), an employee with autism experienced a deterioration in his mental health and went on sick leave. He subsequently requested a number of adjustments to his working arrangements, including more consistent scheduling, two consecutive days off and avoiding a roster consisting predominantly of closing shifts.

Although the employer obtained occupational health advice and explored alternative roster arrangements, the Labour Court found that there had been significant delays in meaningfully engaging with the employee's requests.

The Court concluded that the adjustments could have been implemented in a timely manner and increased the original compensation award from €12,000 to €29,000.

A further example is A Clerical Worker v A Healthcare Employer, ADJ 00053987 (2026). An employee who had received an autism diagnosis was certified fit to return to work but remained away from work for more than eight months while the employer expected him to arrange a workplace risk assessment himself.

The WRC found that responsibility for assessing workplace risks rested with the employer, not the employee. The employer's failure to take ownership of the assessment and facilitate the employee's return amounted to a failure to provide reasonable accommodation. The employee was awarded €5,000, and the employer was directed to review its neurodiversity policies.

These decisions demonstrate that obtaining medical advice is only one part of the process. Employers must take responsibility for progressing the matter and implementing appropriate measures.

What employers should do:

• Seek occupational health advice where an employee's medical circumstances or fitness to return to work require further assessment.
• Ask specific questions about the employee's capabilities, workplace restrictions and possible adjustments.
• Take ownership of any workplace risk assessments required and do not place this responsibility on the employee.
• Act promptly on occupational health recommendations and avoid unnecessary delays.
• Maintain regular communication with the employee throughout the process.

3. Taking a one size fits all approach to mental health and neurodiversity

Mental health conditions and neurodevelopmental differences can affect employees in very different ways. An adjustment that works well for one employee may not be suitable for another, even where both employees have the same diagnosis.

Employers should avoid making assumptions about what an employee needs based solely on their medical condition or diagnosis.

In the Omniplex case discussed above, the employer had consulted external organisations and introduced a number of supports for neurodivergent employees, including quiet spaces, structured breaks and other workplace adjustments.

While these were positive initiatives, the Labour Court recognised that the measures did not adequately address the particular needs of the employee concerned.

This highlights an important distinction between having general wellbeing or neurodiversity initiatives in place and providing effective individual reasonable accommodation.

A company may have an excellent mental health policy, but this does not remove the need to consider an employee's individual circumstances.

What employers should do:

• Consult directly with the employee rather than making assumptions about their condition.
• Consider how the employee's particular role, working environment and responsibilities may affect their ability to work.
• Review adjustments regularly to establish whether they are working effectively.
• Train managers to recognise that employees may experience the same condition differently.
• Ensure workplace wellbeing initiatives complement, rather than replace, individual reasonable accommodation.

4. Continuing performance or disciplinary procedures without considering mental health

Employers are entitled to manage performance, address misconduct and apply their disciplinary procedures where necessary. However, where an employee is experiencing mental health difficulties, it is important to consider whether these circumstances may be contributing to the issues arising.

Proceeding with a disciplinary or performance management process without considering an employee's medical circumstances can create unnecessary legal risks.

The decision in Gourley v Mason Hayes & Curran LLP, ADJ 00049048 (2024) is particularly relevant here. The employee's mental health difficulties and request for reasonable accommodation arose during a period when performance concerns were already being addressed.

Although the WRC did not find that the dismissal itself was discriminatory, it found that the employer had failed to properly consider reasonable accommodation before making decisions affecting the employee's employment.

This demonstrates that even where an employer has legitimate performance concerns, it must still consider its obligations towards an employee with a disability.

This does not mean that employers cannot proceed with performance or disciplinary procedures where an employee is experiencing mental health difficulties. However, the employee's circumstances should be properly assessed and fair procedures maintained.

What employers should do:

• Consider whether an employee's mental health may be contributing to performance or conduct concerns.
• Seek medical or occupational health advice where appropriate before making decisions about an employee's capability.
• Consider whether reasonable adjustments are required to the process itself, such as additional time, written submissions or alternative meeting arrangements.
• Ensure the employee understands the concerns being raised and has a genuine opportunity to respond.
• Do not make a decision to dismiss without considering the employee's circumstances, available supports and any reasonable accommodation requirements.

5. Failing to properly investigate grievances and workplace bullying complaints

Mental health concerns can often arise from difficulties within the workplace, including excessive workloads, poor management practices, interpersonal conflict or alleged bullying.

Where an employee raises concerns about their working environment, employers should take the matter seriously and ensure it is addressed through the appropriate procedures.

In the case of A Shop Assistant v A Retailer, ADJ 00015003 (2019), an employee experienced ongoing sexual comments from an assistant manager over a period of approximately six months. The employee's mental health deteriorated, but the employer failed to take appropriate action when the concerns were raised.

The WRC highlighted the responsibility of management to ensure workplace policies and procedures are implemented and awarded the employee €40,000 in compensation.

This case reinforces that having a dignity at work or anti harassment policy is not enough. Employers must ensure that complaints are actively addressed and appropriate action is taken.

Similarly, the WRC has highlighted concerns in other cases involving employees experiencing work related stress where management failed to engage with the issues raised over an extended period.

Delays, poor communication and a lack of meaningful action can make an already difficult situation worse and increase the risk of a formal employment claim.

What employers should do:

• Acknowledge employee concerns promptly and establish the nature of the complaint.
• Follow the organisation's grievance, dignity at work policies and procedures.
• Appoint an appropriately trained and impartial person to investigate formal complaints.
• Keep employees informed of progress and any anticipated delays.
• Consider appropriate interim supports or working arrangements while a complaint is being addressed.
• Ensure both the complainant and the person responding to the allegations are treated fairly and afforded appropriate procedural protections.

6. Ignoring the warning signs of workplace stress and burnout

Employers also have responsibilities under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005 to protect the safety, health and welfare of employees, which includes taking reasonable steps to manage risks to mental health.

A key consideration in workplace stress related claims is whether the employer knew, or reasonably ought to have known, that an employee was at risk of suffering harm.

In Maher v Jabil Global Services Ltd [2005] IEHC 130, the High Court considered an employee's claim that workplace pressures had caused him psychological injury.

The Court identified three important considerations when assessing an employer's liability:

• Whether the employee had suffered an actual injury to their health, rather than ordinary occupational stress.
• Whether the injury was attributable to the workplace.
• Whether the harm was reasonably foreseeable to the employer.

This highlights the importance of recognising and responding to warning signs. Where an employee repeatedly raises concerns about excessive workloads, unreasonable expectations or workplace pressures, employers should not simply assume that these are ordinary workplace frustrations.

Offering access to an Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) can be a valuable support, but it should not be viewed as a complete solution where the underlying problem relates to workplace conditions or management practices.

For example, where an employee is experiencing stress because of an excessive workload, providing access to counselling will not resolve the issue if no steps are taken to review the workload itself.

What employers should do:

• Monitor workloads and working arrangements to identify potential sources of excessive stress.
• Encourage employees to raise concerns and ensure managers respond appropriately.
• Carry out workplace risk assessments and review them where circumstances change.
• Address the underlying causes of workplace stress rather than relying solely on wellbeing initiatives or EAP services.
• Train managers to recognise early warning signs and know when to seek HR or occupational health support.

Key takeaways for employers

Recent WRC and Labour Court decisions demonstrate that employers need to take a proactive and individualised approach when managing mental health in the workplace.

While having appropriate policies and employee wellbeing supports in place is important, these must be supported by effective management practices, timely intervention and a willingness to engage with employees when concerns arise.

Employers should ensure they:

• Recognise that mental health conditions may constitute a disability under the Employment Equality Acts and consider reasonable accommodation where applicable.
• Engage with employees early and take requests for support seriously.
• Obtain appropriate occupational health advice and act on recommendations without unnecessary delay.
• Consider individual employee needs rather than relying on a standard approach to mental health or neurodiversity.
• Apply fair procedures when managing performance, disciplinary matters and capability issues.
• Investigate grievances and bullying complaints promptly, independently and in accordance with the relevant procedures.
• Identify and address workplace stressors before they escalate into more serious issues.
• Provide managers with the training and guidance needed to manage sensitive employee matters appropriately.

Ultimately, supporting mental health in the workplace is about more than having a wellbeing policy or offering access to an EAP. Employers need to demonstrate that they listen to employees, respond to concerns and take practical steps to address issues when they arise.

For advice and support on managing employee wellbeing, workplace stress, absenteeism, reasonable accommodation and employee relations matters, contact MSS The HR People at info@mssthehrpeople.ie or call +353 (0)1 887 0690.

Amanda McCann