ECJ rules trainees are covered by employment protection directive News
© Wikimedia (Luxofluxo)
ECJ rules trainees are covered by employment protection directive

The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ or CJEU) ruled Thursday that companies need to make accommodations for employees who become disabled, even if those employees are in temporary training programs.

A press release from the court explains that the case originated with a worker dispute in Belgium. In 2016, Belgium railway HR Rail hired a worker for a traineeship. In 2017, however, the worker was diagnosed with a heart condition which was recognized as a disability. In June 2018, the worker was reassigned to a warehouse position after the company’s medical center declared the worker unfit for the role he was originally hired for. In September 2018, the worker was dismissed. In October 2018, the worker’s traineeship was terminated “owing to his total and permanent incapacity to perform the duties for which he had been recruited.” The worker later appeared before the Belgium Council of State to annul the decision to end his employment.

The reason the case was before the CJEU was because the Belgium Council of State requested the court interpret the language of Directive 2000/78. The directive establishes a general framework to ensure equal treatment in all EU employment and occupation settings. Specifically at issue before the court was the concept of “reasonable accommodations” for persons with disabilities covered by the directive.

In the ruling, the ECJ first noted that Directive 2000/78 applies to all types and levels of employment – including vocational training. The court found the language in the directive was broad enough to encompass traineeship. As such, the worker in the Belgium Council of State case fell under the protection of the directive, despite the fact that he was never offered permanent employment, only a traineeship.

Second, the court found the “reasonable accommodation” language in Directive 2000/78 to be very broad. Specifically, the court ruled that the language requires employers “take appropriate measures, where needed in a particular case, to enable a person with a disability to have access to, participate in, or advance in employment, or to undergo training, unless such measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer.”