Access to disbled toilets being restricted by employer

jobbingmusician

Here's a different point of view - perhaps your employer believed that all disabled people were automatically issued with RADAR keys. (Originally, I mean - I am shocked that he didn't sort things out promptly when your husband pointed out that he was having a problem.)

amiehall

I can't believe the employer didn't offer to get another key for your husband after this issue was raised to them. While I agree that it probably isn't "discriminatory", it also isn't very considerate. At the very least, they could surely have stored the key in the office closest to the toilet.

John1993_2

Raksha wrote: »

He says he did, and got the response to ask his manager for the key every time... he did order his own key, but its taken a while to arrive

But he had your key, so what on earth is the supposed discrimination?

KME91

Actually it could be argued that it is discrimination. Do able bodied staff have to ask their manager for a key in order to use the bathroom? If not, then this is a negative act being carried out towards only disabled people, and so yes I think it is discrimination. The question is not one of intent, but whether disabled people are being unfairly disadvantaged and in this case that appears to be happening. The sad thing is it'd be easily resolved. Either issue everyone with a key or take the RADAR lock off the door.

John1993_2

KME91 wrote: »

Actually it could be argued that it is discrimination. Do able bodied staff have to ask their manager for a key in order to use the bathroom?

No, and neither did the OP's partner, he had a key.

As to you assertion that the toilets should just be available to all, the restriction, and the key, are there to make sure that the disabled have it free when they need it, without able-bodied people using it. Do you really think the lock is just to inconvenience those for whom it was built?

The OP seems like the sort who'd still be on here complaining if it was unlocked, and people used it ahead of her partner.

uknick

Is Hanlon's razor at play here?

Tiddlywinks

uknick wrote: »

Is Hanlon's razor at play here?

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

I agree... people assume the worst - I think the employer was simply trying to assist by restricting access to those more able who could use other facilities.

Sometimes 'intention' has an 'unintended consequences'.

Raksha

John1993 wrote: »

But he had your key, so what on earth is the supposed discrimination?

He didn't have my key until I gave it to him when he told me the one he'd ordered still hadn't arrived.

The discrimination is in the fact that the able bodied employees do not have to ask for a key or obtain their own at their own expense.

scheming_gypsy

He needs a key so able bodied people don't use the disabled toilets, but able bodied people don't claim discrimination that they have to share a toilet with more people.

disabled toilets have a key so everybody else doesn't use them, it's not discrimination.

dori2o

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

He needs a key so able bodied people don't use the disabled toilets, but able bodied people don't claim discrimination that they have to share a toilet with more people.

disabled toilets have a key so everybody else doesn't use them, it's not discrimination.

You are missing the entire point.

We know why some disabled toilets have special (RADAR) keys and it has nothing to do with sharing toilets with other people.

The facts are that PRIOR to this particular employee sourcing their own RADAR key, which not all disabled people use/need, the employee WHO HAS SEVERE MOBILITY ISSUES had to walk to the manager, ask for the key, go to the toilet, use the facilities, walk back to the manager, and then walk back to their desk.

If this was an able bodied employee then the chances are they could walk to the toilet and walk back. There is no need to make the additional trip to the managers desk.

The additional time that walking to the managers desk to get the key takes could be the difference between making it to the toilet in time, and having a very embarrassing accident in front of the whole office.

It seems that the employee HAS asked for a personal key and has been refused. I assume this will be the case for all employees who require use of the disabled toilets. Therefore the employee has sourced their own.

IF it it the case that the employer knows that not all disabled people have a RADAR key and still refuses to supply them to the employees who need them, then by implementing a process that is detrimental to the disabled employees, i.e. making them walk further and ask permission for the key, then it could be seen as a discriminatory act.

That doesn't mean that these disabled people would be looking for some form of monetary compensation, but could use that as the basis to instigate change, i.e. have the employer supply keys to those who require them.

Thankfully in the OPs case their husband now has their own key, but what about the other disabled people in the office?