The case of Richard Sahlin v. Sweden. Views of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities dated August 21, 2020. Message No. 60/2019.
In 2019, the author of the communication was assisted in the preparation of complaints. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Sweden.
The decisions and actions of the State party's authorities reduced the possibility of selecting persons with disabilities for positions requiring adaptation of the working environment to their needs (a sign language interpreter was required). In particular, the Committee considered that the evaluation of the requested assistance and adaptation measures by the Swedish Labour Court contributed to the refusal to provide reasonable accommodation, which in fact led to the discriminatory exclusion of the author from employment for the position of lecturer for which he applied, in violation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Violations of the Convention have been committed.
As seen from the text of the Considerations, in the spring of 2015, a competition was announced at the University of Södertern, which was a public institution, to fill the permanent position of lecturer (associate professor) of the Department of Public Law. Previously, the author had to temporarily work at the University of Södertern, whose management is aware of his need for sign language translation. The competition commission considered him the most qualified candidate for this position and as one of the stages of the employment procedure, he was given the opportunity to conduct a trial lecture. Despite the level of his qualifications, on May 17, 2016, the university stopped the process of filling the vacancy, stating that paying for sign language translation would be too costly to guarantee the author's right to employment on the basis of equality with other candidates. The cost of the necessary sign language translation was estimated at SEK 520,000 (US$ 55,341) per year. The university's annual budget for human resources exceeded half a billion Swedish kronor, and in 2016 the budget surplus amounted to 187 million Swedish kronor (US$20 million). No further analysis of alternative forms of workplace adaptation or reasonable adaptation, including the adaptation of official functions that do not require sign language translation, such as measures to monitor students and conduct exams and instruction via the Internet, was carried out by the University administration at any stage of the employment process (paragraph 2.2 of the Considerations).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: it was noted that various State bodies were involved in the case, each of which acted in accordance with its powers and responsibilities: the State university, which announced the vacancy and then stopped the process of filling it; the Equality Ombudsman, who, at the request of the author, represented his interests in the competent national courts; the Board of Appeal for Higher Education; the Labor Dispute Court; the Administrative Court and the Administrative Court of Appeal. With regard to the University, the Committee considered: The fact that he did not inform the author about the insufficiency of government funding measures to cover the costs of the adaptations necessary for the author to work in the position for which he applied became an obstacle to consultations and consideration of alternative adaptation measures. In other words, in the opinion of the Committee, the possibility of conducting a dialogue to assess and strengthen the author's potential for permanent employment as an associate professor was negated, since the vacancy filling process was terminated before any consultation and analysis of alternative adaptation measures (paragraph 8.7 of the Considerations).
The lack of dialogue, according to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, influenced the conduct of the trial, during which the authorities focused on studying the cost factor of sign language translation, without considering the possibility of taking other adaptation measures. The Labor Dispute Court analyzed: the cost of sign language translation services in relation to the employer's ability to pay for them; the impact of the measures taken on the author's ability to perform functions in the mentioned position; the duration of the employment period; the impact of measures taken in the interests of the author on other persons with disabilities; and a number of public financing measures that could be used by the employer and employee. Having considered these aspects, the Labour Court concluded that these adaptation measures would be too expensive (paragraph 8.8 of the Considerations).
The Committee found that the author had repeatedly intended to propose alternative adaptation measures to the university and the Ombudsman for Equality in the hope that this specialized State body would raise this issue in the courts. In this context, the Committee took note of the State party's statement that, in the author's case, significant funding measures were provided to facilitate his employment in the form of support through daily sign language translation and an annual salary subsidy. The Committee also stressed that, in the State party's view, although the decision of the Labour Court referred only to the above-mentioned public financing measures, this did not mean that there were no other financial security measures. However, the fact that the Equality Ombudsman did not raise this issue made it impossible for the Court to consider other funding measures. In making such a statement, the State party acknowledged the responsibility of the State authorities to properly inform the parties to the proceedings about the funding that could be provided to facilitate the author's employment. The Committee did not express an opinion on the outcome of a proper analysis of alternative adaptation measures and "other financial support measures". However, he considered that the participating authorities had not taken all possible measures to promote the realization of the right of persons with disabilities to work (paragraph 8.9 of the Considerations).
The Committee's conclusions: The decisions and actions of the State party's authorities have limited the possibility of selecting persons with disabilities for employment in positions requiring adaptation of the working environment to their needs. In particular, the Committee considered that the assessment by the Labour Court of the requested assistance and adaptation measures contributed to the denial of reasonable accommodation, which led to the discriminatory removal of the author from employment in the position for which he applied, in violation of his rights under articles 5 and 27 of the Convention.