Current employer sharing personal data with prospective employer - what to do?

Weirdlittleman

Absolutly ridicolous. Basically the OP is expecting the employer to be censured so they only disclose what the OP wants them to know.

I am sure they wouldnt be complaining if they had disclosed sterling charity work due to religion or so on.

OP wanted a reference and got a perfectly factual one. The only reason they are upset is that they were trying to hide the condition until it was too late and history clearly shows it impacts on their work. I am also going to suggest dependent on the condition they could have potentially been putting others in danger by not disclosing it.

This is an interesting publication from the Information Commissioner on it http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/health_data_-_use_and_disclosure001.pdf

I reckon a good lawyer could quite easily defend the disclosure of this information and even if they didnt what damages has the OP actually incurred as a result.

If the employer didnt give the job because of this reason it would be classed as discriminatory and as such I doubt the previous employer could be held liable for an illegal action by someone else.

GEEGEE8

Do you have any compassion wierdlittleman? I always find you to be confrontational and quite arrogant.

The OP's OH contracted this through a blood transfusion, no fault of their own.

It will not impact her job.

It was not formally requested by the prospective employer.

The full details did not need to be given.

Seems spiteful to me, the previous employers clearly has a grudge.

lucylucky

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

Absolutly ridicolous. Basically the OP is expecting the employer to be censured so they only disclose what the OP wants them to know.

I am sure they wouldnt be complaining if they had disclosed sterling charity work due to religion or so on.

OP wanted a reference and got a perfectly factual one. The only reason they are upset is that they were trying to hide the condition until it was too late and history clearly shows it impacts on their work. I am also going to suggest dependent on the condition they could have potentially been putting others in danger by not disclosing it.

This is an interesting publication from the Information Commissioner on it http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/health_data_-_use_and_disclosure001.pdf

I reckon a good lawyer could quite easily defend the disclosure of this information and even if they didnt what damages has the OP actually incurred as a result.

If the employer didnt give the job because of this reason it would be classed as discriminatory and as such I doubt the previous employer could be held liable for an illegal action by someone else.

That is not an interesting publication in this case as I am sure you will realise if you had read it.

[Deleted User]

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

Absolutly ridicolous. Basically the OP is expecting the employer to be censured so they only disclose what the OP wants them to know.

I am sure they wouldnt be complaining if they had disclosed sterling charity work due to religion or so on.

OP wanted a reference and got a perfectly factual one. The only reason they are upset is that they were trying to hide the condition until it was too late and history clearly shows it impacts on their work. I am also going to suggest dependent on the condition they could have potentially been putting others in danger by not disclosing it.

This is an interesting publication from the Information Commissioner on it http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/health_data_-_use_and_disclosure001.pdf

I reckon a good lawyer could quite easily defend the disclosure of this information and even if they didnt what damages has the OP actually incurred as a result.

If the employer didnt give the job because of this reason it would be classed as discriminatory and as such I doubt the previous employer could be held liable for an illegal action by someone else.

You're clearly trying to stir up an argument, which is quite sad because it's quite clear from the facts I've given that my OH doesn't deserve this. You're exactly the sort of person who makes her feel so small.

No-one will be in danger by her not disclosing it. She works in an office for flip's sake: it's not like she's a surgeon.

The point here is that my OH could easily have undergone treatment without notifying her previously employer. She did though, out of courtesy, and her employer was supportive. Now that the relationship is strained though, things have changed.

The condition does not IMPACT on her work. It may have IMPACTED previously but that was because she pro-actively chose to undergo treatment to try and cure herself of the condition. It didn't work, but she can wait. She doesn't need treatment and it may be that she will live her entire life without requiring treatment (it's a slowly progressing disease). She chose to have treatment, but won't (and, indeed, can't) have treatment whilst in this new job (should she get it).

You seem to think that a reference is there to disclose everything there is to know about someone: it's not. It's a reference as to someone's character and work ethic. Her manager didn't even need to be informed about her treatment or condition previously.

The other issue is how she reported it. By saying it's a 'blood condition' makes it sound like it could be HIV or AIDS, which obviously scares many people (it's not).

Finally, the key thing here is how this reference was requested. It wasn't just a letter requesting a reference. It was a form, and her employer filled this in a section entitled 'attendance record'. She wrote:

"XXXXXXX underwent a series of treatment for a blood disorder last year but still managed to uphold the vast majority of her commitments"

Ignoring the fact this is incorrect (she upheld all her commitments), the point I'm making is that this section is 'attendance record'. My OH was off sick 4 days last year and otherwise had a perfect attendance record. This section isn't asking for personal health information - it was volunteered.

Person_one

OP, I generally just skip WLM's posts now, I think he's a wind up merchant.

Of course her employer shouldn't have disclosed this information, there's no question.

I second the suggestion to make a formal complaint and possibly even speak to a solicitor. Some extra people may find out that she has a condition, but not the specifics as long as everyone sticks to the rules.

On a personal note, has your girlfriend ever had any counselling offered to help her come to terms with her illness? I assume the stigma you refer to is because the illness is often associated with drug use or unsafe sex? Well there is no reason why she should have to feel ashamed to have this illness and no reason why she shouldn't be able to hold her head high, confirm that she has it and carry on as normal.

I know its easy for me to say, but it makes me so sad to think of her carrying this burden on her shoulders.

dmg24

lucylucky wrote: »

That is not an interesting publication in this case as I am sure you will realise if you had read it.

If you read the document it does hold some relevance, though the information could be interpreted so as to support either side of the argument.

OP, what would your partner like the outcome of the situation to be?

Weirdlittleman

Deleted_User wrote: »

You're clearly trying to stir up an argument, which is quite sad because it's quite clear from the facts I've given that my OH doesn't deserve this. You're exactly the sort of person who makes her feel so small.

No-one will be in danger by her not disclosing it. She works in an office for flip's sake: it's not like she's a surgeon.

The point here is that my OH could easily have undergone treatment without notifying her previously employer. She did though, out of courtesy, and her employer was supportive. Now that the relationship is strained though, things have changed.

The condition does not IMPACT on her work. It may have IMPACTED previously but that was because she pro-actively chose to undergo treatment to try and cure herself of the condition. It didn't work, but she can wait. She doesn't need treatment and it may be that she will leave her entire life without requiring treatment (it's a slowly progressing disease). She chose to have treatment, but won't (and, indeed, can't) have treatment whilst in this new job (should she get it).

You seem to think that a reference is there to disclose everything there is to know about someone: it's not. It's a reference as to someone's character and work ethic. Her manager didn't even need to be informed about her treatment or condition previously.

The other issue is how she reported it. By saying it's a 'blood condition' makes it sound like it could be HIV or AIDS, which obviously scares many people (it's not).

I completely disagree
Your OH has a blood condition which correct me if I am wrong sounds like hepatitis and can be spread by blood. Yes the risk may be less in an office but if she suffered a cut and her colleagues treated her they would be at risk. Is any of this wrong?

Secondly a reference is not always about work ethic. It is the employers decision what to include and what is relevant within the law and he (imo rightly so) chose to include this.

You seem to think the reference should only be giving the information she wants which is completely wrong and if this is the case she should have either discussed it advance or not chosen to give a reference. If I am asked to provide a reference I will include what is relevant and factual and any attempt by the employee to get stuff excluded would not be treated favourably.

I don't think you would win this under the DPA if the employer chose to defend any allegations.

lucylucky

dmg24 wrote: »

If you read the document it does hold some relevance, though the information could be interpreted so as to support either side of the argument.

OP, what would your partner like the outcome of the situation to be?

Which is one of my reasons for saying in this case it is not an interesting publication. It was just part of the armoury of WTM in wind up mode I assume

lucylucky

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

I completely disagree
Your OH has a blood condition which correct me if I am wrong sounds like hepatitis and can be spread by blood. Yes the risk may be less in an office but if she suffered a cut and her colleagues treated her they would be at risk. Is any of this wrong? No need to go fishing for information that you do not need

Secondly a reference is not always about work ethic. It is the employers decision what to include and what is relevant within the law and he (imo rightly so) chose to include this. An employer choosing too give out totally irrelevant information is okay?

You seem to think the reference should only be giving the information she wants which is completely wrong and if this is the case she should have either discussed it advance or not chosen to give a reference. If I am asked to provide a reference I will include what is relevant and factual and any attempt by the employee to get stuff excluded would not be treated favourably. The condition is of no-relevance though as has already been pointed out

I don't think you would win this under the DPA if the employer chose to defend any allegations.

I disagree - they may well win

[Deleted User]

Weirdlittleman wrote: »

I completely disagree
Your OH has a blood condition which correct me if I am wrong sounds like hepatitis and can be spread by blood. Yes the risk may be less in an office but if she suffered a cut and her colleagues treated her they would be at risk. Is any of this wrong?

Secondly a reference is not always about work ethic. It is the employers decision what to include and what is relevant within the law and he (imo rightly so) chose to include this.

You seem to think the reference should only be giving the information she wants which is completely wrong and if this is the case she should have either discussed it advance or not chosen to give a reference. If I am asked to provide a reference I will include what is relevant and factual and any attempt by the employee to get stuff excluded would not be treated favourably.

I don't think you would win this under the DPA if the employer chose to defend any allegations.

WLM, by your logic she ought to avoid all contact with every other human being on the planet? I mean, heaven forbid any of the 100,000s of sufferers in the UK actually get a job that involves them working with other people?

The risk of transmission is minimal and requires blood-on-blood contact. As a typically ignorant person, you will realise that if she cuts herself, the person treating her would also need to have an exposed wound and even then it is highly unlikely transmission would occur.

Just taking your points head-on, would you be so aggressive if you read my previous comment and saw that this wasn't 'just a reference', but a question specifically about her attendance record (which is good)? If the question was 'does the applicant have any medical issues' then fair enough, but the question was 'what was her attendance like?'. It was fine. 4 days off in the whole year, and they were not related to her treatment.

My OH is not trying to 'hide' this condition, but you're the perfect example of the sort of hysteria she faces in telling people. When her boss found out, the first thing she did was put a rubber band around her glass of water and tell my OH that she's done it so it's clear whose glass is whose and to avoid contamination, despite the fact you can't pass it on through sharing glasses.

Now that her prospective employer knows - and given the job is for a 1 year fixed contract - will they be thinking 'what if she falls ill and can't do her work?'. What if they think 'clearly she got it through taking drugs, so we should avoid her'.

The key issue here is the way in which her employer has told people. She's done it in a way which is going to scare people. WHAT blood condition, they will say? She makes no reference to what it is and why, which is sad.

Incidentally, have some compassion, won't you? My OH contracted the condition when she was 8 years old, through a contaminated blood transfusion. She's had to live with this horrific condition all her life and it's taken its toll emotionally and physically. Forever feeling 'tainted' when you've done nothing wrong. Unable to enjoy alchohol or drink. Having a deep-rooted hatred towards the NHS and unable to have injections without suffering panic attacks. Having to visit hospitals several times a year.

Some people can be so heartless.