In a recent case, a cancer survivor was forced to resign from her job at an international school due to disagreements over work-from-home arrangements. The woman, who had been working as an administrative assistant for 17 years, was diagnosed with Stage 3 nasopharyngeal cancer in July 2024. After months of chemotherapy and radiotherapy, she was declared fit to return to work in late June 2025. However, she needed rest and rehabilitation, and asked for accommodation to assist her recovery and transition back to work.
The school initially agreed to her request, allowing her to work from home during the summer vacation. However, when the school term resumed, the school's flexible working arrangements policy revoked the work-from-home option for educational support staff. The woman's manager was uncomfortable with the arrangement and raised concerns with the principal and HR manager.
The HR manager found the woman's medical memos insufficient, as they did not clearly define the light duty recommendation or specify the duration or accommodations required. The school principal testified that the administrative running of the department was becoming difficult, as the woman was the first point of contact for students, parents, and teachers, and her physical presence at the front desk was essential.
The woman was eventually forced to resign due to the school's refusal to accommodate her medical needs and the resulting stress and deterioration of her health. The magistrate found that the school had breached its duty of care to the woman and had failed to reasonably investigate and consider her health needs.
The woman was awarded the maximum S$20,000 by the Employment Claims Tribunal, and the magistrate found that her resignation was not voluntary, but a result of the school's persistent failure to accommodate her medical needs. The school's conduct sent a message that her medical needs and vulnerabilities were not to be taken seriously, and that the school was not willing to discharge its duty to take reasonable care of her health and safety.
This case highlights the importance of employers taking reasonable care of their employees' health and safety, especially those with medical vulnerabilities. It also emphasizes the need for genuine engagement and consideration of an employee's health needs, rather than a rigid and insensitive approach.
