What a cancer survivor's legal win means for workers returning after illness

In a recent legal victory, a cancer survivor has won a significant case that sets new standards for employers' obligations when accommodating employees with health needs. The case involved an administrative assistant who had undergone months of treatment for stage three nose cancer. Despite requesting flexible work arrangements, including working from home and reduced duties, she was dismissed by her employer, an international school.

In a ruling published on August 12, an Employment Claims Tribunal awarded her S$20,000 (approximately US$15,600) for wrongful dismissal. The tribunal found that the school had essentially forced her resignation to protect her health. This decision underscores the legal obligations employers have to take reasonable steps to ensure the health and well-being of employees, beyond the scope of workplace injuries and accidents.

According to lawyers, this ruling establishes that employers must adopt a duty of care that encompasses three aspects: inquiring about the health facts, considering them, and responding appropriately. Once health and safety concerns are brought to an employer's attention, they must investigate the matter, consult the employee, and review the recovery trajectory.

Employers should then exercise practical judgment, asking what an "ordinarily prudent" employer would do given the available information and medical advice. This may involve providing reasonable accommodations, such as flexible work arrangements, such as working from home when feasible.

Employers should also consider alternative roles within the organization for employees who cannot continue effectively in their current roles due to health issues. Only in extreme circumstances should termination be considered, and this should be carried out through proper medical board-out policies. While the court acknowledged that the employer had a legitimate business interest, it emphasized that the duty of care does not compel an employer to capitulate to every request, especially at the expense of its legitimate business requirements.

NTUC assistant secretary-general Patrick Tay advised employers to allow workers with health needs to continue in their roles with appropriate adjustments, such as flexible work arrangements. Workers who cannot continue in their current roles should be offered alternatives, and in extreme cases, appropriate compensation should be paid.

The court clarified that the duty of care does not demand employers to surrender to every employee request but requires them to genuinely explore options before deciding on a particular course of action. The overarching approach should be to navigate the matter with care, sensitivity, and respect for the employee as a human being.