Irish universities answer to two pieces of legislation where disabled students are concerned – the Equal Status Acts 2000-2018 and the Disability Act 2005.
The first frames disability equality as a question of individual rights in education, while the second treats universities as public bodies that must make their campuses and services broadly accessible.
Under the Equal Status Acts the word “disability” is interpreted very broadly, ranging from physical or sensory impairments through learning differences and mental-health conditions to serious illnesses, whether those conditions are current, past, potentially future, or even merely imputed to the person.
By contrast, the Disability Act limits the term to an “enduring impairment that substantially restricts the person’s day-to-day life”.
In practice, universities rely on the wider Equal Status definition when deciding who is entitled to adjustments, but the narrower Disability Act definition still matters for duties about universal access and employment quotas.
The equal status Acts
One thing to note is that the Equal Status Acts prohibit discrimination at every stage of the student lifecycle – admission, the terms of admission, access to courses and facilities, the conditions attaching to participation, and disciplinary sanctions.
The legislation therefore goes far beyond examinations or other forms of assessment. A college that, for example, fails to provide an induction loop in a lecture theatre or accessible accommodation in a halls-of-residence decision would be caught just as surely as one that ignores a request for extra time in an exam.
Where a disabled student would otherwise find it impossible or unduly difficult to study, the university must do “all that is reasonable” to accommodate, and it may refuse only where the cost would exceed a nominal amount after taking available grants into account.
Another escape clause allows an institution to decline an adjustment if providing it would make education for other students impossible or seriously detrimental. The duty is therefore reactive – it crystallises when the need is known, and universities defend themselves by showing that they assessed options before saying no.
The Disability Act
Because universities are public bodies, they were required to ensure that all public buildings met accessibility standards by 31 December 2015, subject only to tightly drawn exceptions.
They must also be able to supply information – like lecture notes, timetables, or policy documents – in accessible formats on request, and they must designate an Access Officer to help students navigate services.
The obligations are anticipatory – the university must have accessible premises, systems, and publications in place without waiting for an individual request. The Act also points institutions towards “universal design”, encouraging them to embed accessibility from the outset rather than retrofit it later.
Oversight mechanisms differ. A student who believes reasonable accommodation has been refused under the Equal Status Acts can bring a claim to the Workplace Relations Commission if the matter is not resolved after a written notification to the college. Complaints about Disability Act duties start with an internal inquiry officer and may be appealed to the Ombudsman.
The National Disability Authority monitors the statutory three-per-cent target for employing disabled staff and reports on public-sector compliance.
There is an “anticipatory element” in the Disability Act’s accessibility requirements, whereas the Equal Status duty to make “reasonable accommodation” becomes enforceable once an individual need is identified – though universities must still examine possibilities rather than wait passively.
Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
UDL offers higher education a framework that goes beyond mere compliance to enhance learning for all students. Built on three principles – multiple means of representation (varied content formats), engagement (diverse ways to motivate learners), and action/expression (flexible assessment options) – UDL encourages designing courses from the outset that work for everyone.
In practice, this means lecturers might provide content through captioned recordings, written transcripts, visual diagrams, and interactive discussions, while offering assignment choices ranging from traditional essays to presentations or creative projects. The approach benefits not just students with disabilities but the entire diverse student body – captions help international students and those studying in noisy environments, advance lecture notes support different processing speeds, and flexible assessments allow all students to demonstrate their strengths.
By embedding UDL into teaching practice, Irish institutions can simultaneously meet legal requirements while creating genuinely inclusive learning environments that prepare all graduates for success in an increasingly diverse society. The key is recognising that when we design for the margins, we improve education for everyone – making UDL not just a compliance tool but a catalyst for pedagogical innovation across higher education.
The Abrahart case
Natasha Abrahart was a high-achieving second-year physics student at the University of Bristol in England who had chronic social anxiety. Staff knew from October 2017 that she froze or failed to answer during viva-style laboratory interviews, missed sessions, and in February 2018 disclosed suicidal thoughts, yet the university pressed ahead with large-theatre oral assessments and penalised her non-performance.
On 30 April 2018 – the day she was due to give a presentation in front of 329 people – Natasha died by suicide. In May 2022 Bristol County Court held that the university had actual or constructive knowledge of her disability and had unlawfully failed to make reasonable adjustments, discriminated indirectly, and treated her unfavourably; a parallel negligence claim was dismissed.
The High Court dismissed the university’s appeal, confirming that the oral format was merely a method of assessment, not an indispensable competence standard, and that internal procedures could not trump the Equality Act duty to act once disability was evident.
The Abrahart case therefore revolved around two points – first, whether a university that knows – or ought to know – that a student’s disability makes an oral presentation distressing must adapt the assessment, and second, whether the assessment format itself can be shielded from adaptation by describing it as a “competence standard.”
The English High Court upheld the County Court’s view that the format was simply a method of assessment, not a core standard of physics, so reasonable adjustments such as written answers or smaller-group questioning should have been explored. It added that universities cannot stand idle while waiting for formal medical evidence if the student’s behaviour makes the disability plain, and that internal procedures must bend to the Equality Act duty to accommodate.
Irish disability law would almost certainly produce the same practical outcome – and in some respects it sets a stricter test for universities. Section 4 of the Equal Status Acts 2000–2018 makes it discrimination to fail to do “all that is reasonable” to enable a disabled student to participate, unless the cost goes beyond a “nominal amount” after available grants are considered.
There is no statutory carve-out for “competence standards”; a university can refuse only where the accommodation would be impossible or would seriously undermine the service to others, a defence interpreted narrowly by the Workplace Relations Commission. Irish courts therefore would likely ask broadly the same question as the judge in the Abrahart case – is there another way of testing the knowledge or skill that does not place the disabled student at a substantial disadvantage, and is that alternative reasonably practicable?
Knowledge of disability is approached in much the same way. Critically, the Act emphasises the impact of the disability, rather than the cause, as the determining factor for support. This is further reinforced by legal advice obtained by Ireland’s Disability Advisors Working Network (DAWN) in April 2023, provided by Byrne Wallace Solicitors. The opinion clarified that institutions must act on both actual and constructive knowledge of a disability. Constructive knowledge arises when there are clear indications or reports of a student’s disability, even if formal evidence has not been provided (DAWN, 2023).
The legal opinion highlighted that requiring strict medical or diagnostic evidence for reasonable accommodations could constitute discrimination under the Equal Status Act. Institutions are obligated to provide supports based on observable needs and self-reported barriers, aligning with the Act’s objective of prioritising access over proof. The advice explicitly stated that evidence of disability does not need to meet a predetermined threshold, and that supports should be implemented based on the barriers a student experiences, not the availability of formal documentation.
This approach aligns with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which advocates for systemic changes to address inequalities and promote inclusivity. Article 9 of the Convention calls for the removal of barriers to access, highlighting that states and institutions must take proactive steps to accommodate individuals without requiring unnecessary or burdensome documentation (UNCRPD, 2006).
The DAWN legal opinion further criticised the over-reliance on the nominal cost exemption, which some institutions have used to justify limiting accommodations. It clarified that inclusivity should be prioritised even when accommodations involve additional expense, and emphasised that universities must engage in a meaningful and timely interactive process with students. This process should explore and implement accommodations while ensuring compliance with legal obligations and safeguarding students’ rights (DAWN, 2023).
In practical terms, this all means institutions should not withhold supports based on the absence of a formal diagnosis. Instead, they must respond flexibly to students’ needs as they present, providing interim accommodations where necessary and supporting students through the process of obtaining further evidence if desired. The principle shifts the focus from proving a disability to addressing its impact, creating a more inclusive and equitable educational environment.
So seeing a student freeze in seminars, for example – triggers the duty just as effectively as an emailed doctor’s letter. Universities cannot rely on bureaucratic gateways such as extenuating-circumstances forms or “proof” – those gateways are themselves “provisions, criteria or practices” that must not place the disabled student at a disadvantage.
The Disability Act 2005 layers on an anticipatory obligation – as public bodies, universities must already have accessible information and assessment systems in place, supported by an access officer, without waiting for a complaint.
And on assessment, an Irish court would be unlikely to indulge a claim that oral performance is indispensable to a physics degree unless the university could show that every alternative would either defeat the pedagogic aim or impose more than nominal cost – and even then it would still have to demonstrate that grants such as the Fund for Students with Disabilities could not bridge the gap.
The practical implications are:
- Irish institutions should probably undertake a line-by-line review of assessment methods, identify any genuinely essential skills, document why those skills are essential, and record the range of reasonable adjustments that could still evidence them.
- Staff training should stress that observable struggle may be enough to trigger proactive support; waiting for diagnostic paperwork is a high-risk strategy. Internal regulations that make the student navigate multiple offices before help arrives may not survive scrutiny, and continued reliance on fixed oral or timed assessments without documented justification could result in WRC awards, reputational damage, and, in the worst case, civil liability for the consequences.
- On competence standards, Irish law again aligns in spirit. True competence standards should be minimal, objectively defined, and transparently published, while everything else – including how a standard is assessed – remains open to adjustment
Because the Equal Status Acts lack the English exemption, in theory Irish providers have even less room to hide an assessment format behind the label of “standard.” If an ability is genuinely indispensable – for instance, a real-time clinical skill in a dentistry clinic – the university can say so, but it must still demonstrate that no reasonable modification of the testing environment or the pathway to credit could achieve the same assurance of competence. Failure to make that showing exposes the institution to a direct-discrimination finding – the “nominal cost” ceiling will not rescue a decision that is simply unjustified.
Consequently, Irish universities should probably treat competence-standard frameworks being discussed in the UK as a compliance blueprint. They should articulate essential skills during programme design, teach those skills explicitly, publish the metric by which they are judged, and – crucially – explain to students at enrolment how the skill may be evidenced with or without adjustments.
Doing so will not only reduce legal risk – it will nudge practice towards universal design, lighten the load on individual reasonable-adjustment negotiations, and, ultimately, create an academic culture in which disability is anticipated rather than accommodated after the fact.
Cahill v the Minister for Education
Kim Cahill, a Leaving Certificate candidate with diagnosed dyslexia, received an exemption from spelling and grammar marking in 2001 – the State Examinations Commission, however, printed a notation on her results sheet announcing that parts of her language papers had not been assessed.
She felt the notation needlessly disclosed her disability – potentially prejudicing university admissions and job prospects – and pursued a discrimination claim under the Equal Status Acts.
An Equality Tribunal adjudicator ruled in her favour, but the Minister for Education appealed and succeeded in the Circuit and High Courts, which held the Minister exempt from the duty to provide reasonable accommodations. Undeterred, Cahill, supported by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, carried the matter to the Supreme Court.
On 24 May 2017 the Court restored the Tribunal’s broad interpretation of reasonable accommodation, confirmed the Minister’s direct responsibilities, and decisively clarified that education authorities must take positive, proportionate steps to offset disability-related disadvantage without publicly labelling the student.
The Cahill judgment hardens the legal ground. By holding that the Minister for Education remains squarely within the Equal Status Acts’ definition of a service provider, the Supreme Court ends any argument that higher-education institutions might somehow sit outside the duty to make reasonable accommodation.
Whatever administrative schemes or exam regulations a university operates, they must now be interpreted – and, if necessary, rewritten – so that a disabled student can participate on an equal footing, unless the change would involve more than a nominal cost once grants and other supports are factored in.
Because the Court insisted on a “broad and generous” reading of what counts as reasonable, universities need to assume that accommodation requests will be viewed through a rights-promoting lens. That makes passive or paperwork-heavy systems risky: waiting for formal proof of disability, or disclosing a student’s condition on transcripts or certificates when a less intrusive option is possible, are now clear red flags.
The lesson is proactive design. Academic boards should audit every assessment method, support policy, and student record to check whether it could be delivered in a way that avoids putting a disabled student at a disadvantage – much as the Abrahart litigation urged in England, albeit under a different statute.
Confidentiality is the second practical upshot. The notation on Ms Cahill’s Leaving Certificate was condemned because it needlessly revealed her dyslexia. Universities that still mark transcripts or award documents in ways that single out disability will have to stop or face challenge. Alternative accommodations – extra time, assistive technology, smaller venues – can achieve the same pedagogic goal without public labelling.
Finally, the decision raises the stakes of non-compliance. A student can now rely on the Equal Status Acts with renewed confidence, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission may back strategic complaints, and Workplace Relations Commission awards for distress are likely to reference the Supreme Court’s reasoning.
For universities, that translates into a cost-benefit equation that heavily favours early investment in universal design, staff training, and clear, student-centred adjustment procedures over the reputational and financial hit of litigation.
The European Accessibility Act
From 28 June 2025, the European Accessibility Act (EAA) fundamentally changes how educational institutions must approach digital accessibility. Unlike previous legislation that carried little enforcement power, the EAA introduces serious legal consequences for non-compliance, including fines up to €60,000 and potential imprisonment.
For SUs across Ireland, this represents both a critical advocacy opportunity and a responsibility to ensure members can fully access their education.
Recent research reveals widespread accessibility failures across Irish higher education. Common issues that directly impact students include:
- Scanned PDFs: Lecturers uploading photocopied materials as image-only PDFs, making them completely inaccessible to screen readers or text-to-speech software
- Poor PowerPoint design: Slides crammed with text, using poor colour contrasts, or containing decorative animations that serve no educational purpose
- Inaccessible documents: Long Word documents and PDFs without proper heading structures, making navigation impossible for students using assistive technologies
- Complex images without descriptions: Diagrams, charts and educational graphics lacking alternative text or proper descriptions
- Format over function: Content converted to “trendy” formats like online flipbooks that look impressive but destroy accessibility features
When a blind student encounters a scanned PDF, or a dyslexic student can’t use text-to-speech on their course materials, they’re effectively locked out of their education. Research shows disabled students experience higher dropout rates at each educational transition, partly due to these persistent barriers.
The EAA, transposed into Irish law, is a dramatic shift from previous accessibility legislation. Where the EU Web Accessibility Directive (covering public sector websites) was essentially toothless, the EAA has real enforcement mechanisms.
The Act applies to:
- Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) like Moodle or Blackboard
- All digital learning materials
- Online assessment and examination systems
- Library systems and databases
- Student portals and administrative systems
- Communication platforms and emails
- Any e-commerce systems
Compliance authorities can now:
- Issue legally binding directions to comply (not requests)
- Support individual students bringing court proceedings
- Enable interest groups to support cases
Crucially, students no longer bear the burden alone. Disability advocacy organisations can support or bring cases on behalf of affected students, removing the impossible choice between “completing my degree” or “fighting for my rights.”
Penalties can include up to €5,000 fine and/or 6 months imprisonment – or for serious non-compliance, up to €60,000 fine and/or 18 months imprisonment
SUs are uniquely positioned to drive change. SUs understand student experiences, have direct communication channels, and carry political weight within institutions. The EAA transforms accessibility from a “nice to have” to a legal imperative that protects institutions from serious consequences.
Students’ unions need to take immediate action to champion digital accessibility across their institutions. The first step is conducting a thorough audit of the university’s systems, reviewing websites, social media presence, documents, and all communications to ensure they meet accessibility standards. Any services it provides must demonstrate compliance.
Running awareness campaigns about digital accessibility rights helps empower your members, while creating simple guides enables students to identify and report accessibility barriers they encounter. Partnering with disability services to deliver training strengthens this educational mission and builds essential alliances across the institution.
Advocacy efforts may mean demanding thorough accessibility audits of learning systems, pushing for mandatory accessibility training for teaching staff, and ensuring accessibility becomes a non-negotiable consideration in all technology procurement decisions. Regular progress reports on accessibility compliance should be requested to maintain accountability and track improvements over time.
Supporting affected students requires establishing clear reporting mechanisms for accessibility issues and documenting patterns of non-compliance.
Read more
Opinion – Supporting Students with Disabilities: A Call for Change in Eligibility Criteria
“Cinderella’s Revenge” – how the European Accessibility Act changes everything – GATHER 2025
Reasonable accommodation in relation to mental health
