Brussels Labour Court of Appeal · 17 March 2025 · 2023/AB/622
A machine operator was injured at work. His occupational physician considered him able to perform other duties subject to restrictions. The company concluded it had no suitable work. He resigned and challenged the way it had reached that conclusion.
What the employer had missed
The appeal court found that the employer had not genuinely consulted the worker and occupational physician. It had not seriously investigated an administrative role or shown why training could not make other duties possible. It had also failed to show that making adjustments would impose a disproportionate burden.
What the worker received
The first court had allowed one euro in moral damages. On appeal the worker obtained statutory compensation equivalent to six months’ gross pay for refusal of reasonable accommodation. The court rejected a further €10,000 claim because the harm put forward was already covered.
What a return-to-work file can show
The medical restrictions, available tasks, possible training and the record of conversations mattered more than the employer’s conclusion that no job existed. Those records let the court test what the business had actually explored.
