Husband diagnosed with adhd and aspergers

marybelle01

mynameistallulah wrote: »

I agree with you entirely, but that is not how the law sees it - and that is what matters here.

The law does see it like that though. The defence against disability discrimination is that no discrimination ocurred because the employer had no reason to know or think that a disability existed. The nature of the disability here is such that nobody could have known a disability existed in the past. The test therefore is only what happens after the employer knows.

mynameistallulah

marybelle01 wrote: »

The law does see it like that though. The defence against disability discrimination is that no discrimination ocurred because the employer had no reason to know or think that a disability existed. The nature of the disability here is such that nobody could have known a disability existed in the past. The test therefore is only what happens after the employer knows.

As I have already stated, indirect discrimination does not require knowledge of the disability. Look it up if you're not sure - it all changed as a result of the mess left by Malcolm. Knowledge is required for cases of direct discrimination.

BTW I wrote a Masters dissertation on the subject, so I am pretty sure of my facts!

Air_Cooled_75

Isn't this a bit much though, it's like expecting employers to be mind readers? Not being harsh but can't people just be themselves without having some label attached anymore? Flame me if you wish but I'm a bit concerned with the way that anyone who doesn't fit the 'norm' has to have some label, which in itself can be problematic. I doubt in a few years there will be any people who 'don't fit the mould' as such and will have some diagnosis on the autistic spectrum. I know is a bit off topic but it does worry me. We're not robots and just because you may not like to look people in the eye or engage in small talk or not want to conform to a rigid 9-5 lifestyle etc etc is that so wrong? For the record, I've never had a job for more than a couple of years, hate being dictated when I can have a comfort break, engage in small talk only when I have to, can't keep my mouth shut when I'm supposed to but I put that down to my personality rather than a condition. I'm not coming over very sympathetic but it concerns me that you just can't be 'yourself' there has to be some underlying thing waiting for a diagnosis. In years past (70's. 80's, 90's ) were 'eccentrics' no today's aspergers? I dont want to offend anyone but this has been rattling around in my mind for a while...

Catherine_Johnson_2

mynameistallulah wrote: »

As I have already stated, indirect discrimination does not require knowledge of the disability. Look it up if you're not sure - it all changed as a result of the mess left by Malcolm. Knowledge is required for cases of direct discrimination.

BTW I wrote a Masters dissertation on the subject, so I am pretty sure of my facts!

So, to be clear, you're saying that the law states that a lay-person (i.e. a non medical professional) must be, by law, able to diagnose a mental illness that the sufferer isn't even aware of himself and make suitable allowances? I find that very difficult to accept - but I'll bow to your better judgement, as you've written a dissertation

Actually, though, I can't really believe that the law would be that daft! Employers are supposed to make an amateur diagnosis and act on the results? Hmmm, doesn't sound quite right.

marybelle01

Catherine_Johnson wrote: »

So, to be clear, you're saying that the law states that a lay-person (i.e. a non medical professional) must be, by law, able to diagnose a mental illness that the sufferer isn't even aware of himself and make suitable allowances? I find that very difficult to accept - but I'll bow to your better judgement, as you've written a dissertation

Actually, though, I can't really believe that the law would be that daft! Employers are supposed to make an amateur diagnosis and act on the results? Hmmm, doesn't sound quite right.

And I don't care how many dissertations have been written - the law isn't that daft.

PS - Thank you for the recommendation to look up the Malcolm case. I did. It is not about indirect discrimination and it was lost by the claimant - and although not an employment case is reckoned with making employees cases - not employers cases - harder to win

Reference http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2008/07/25/46885/disability-claims-london-borough-of-lewisham-v-malcolm.html

as evidence!