Reasonable Adjustments

marliepanda · 23 November 2017 at 10:41PM

Masomnia wrote: »

If that's their thought process then it's textbook disability discrimination imho.

OP if you want to take it further you should get proper legal advice. No one here can really give you a proper appraisal of what your prospects would be if you did decide to take legal action.

OP is unlikely to succeed. The requests they made are not necessary (as they havent even tried the alternative and its not a clear cut 'they 100% need this' case)

with any job, its always better to get your feet under the table before you start asking for stuff. Accepting a job and then saying right, I will need a corner office, a better desk and I need an upgraded computer because the noise from this one will irritate my (insert x legitimate illness here) right off the bat? Not gonna happen.

sangie595 · 24 November 2017 at 9:57AM

marliepanda wrote: »

OP is unlikely to succeed. The requests they made are not necessary (as they havent even tried the alternative and its not a clear cut 'they 100% need this' case)

with any job, its always better to get your feet under the table before you start asking for stuff. Accepting a job and then saying right, I will need a corner office, a better desk and I need an upgraded computer because the noise from this one will irritate my (insert x legitimate illness here) right off the bat? Not gonna happen.

I agree that it probably isn't a high value claim - but I suspect if the OP pushed one that they would win so the employer might be willing to offer a small settlement to avoid the fuss. But one always had to consider whether a low value claim is worth possible unintended consequences down the line. For example, right now they've probably forgotten him already, and in a couple of years he might want a job with them. Anyone who presses a claim won't be forgotten. Or maybe they happen to know a fair few local employers and share information on such things. Blacklists are illegal, so none exist... Do they? In a large city you might decide that the risk is worth it - in a small town, maybe not so much.

But you are failing to take into account the unique features of a discrimination claim. The OP had to prove that discrimination may have taken place. They can do that. Even you think it may have taken place. I'm pretty certain it did! Because the appropriate and safe approach for the employer should have been to refer to occupational health; or, indeed, to say that the OP should attend work and they would both see how it went, and look at adjustments if it wasn't working. They didn't even give it a shot at making it work - and that would be enough for possible discrimination. Once that is proven the employer must prove it didn't. And they have not a jot of evidence to show what they did to prove that. Assuming, of course, that the OP has given us the full details.

Yes, I agree that the OP played this badly and that there was no compelling evidence that the adjustments were necessary. But the employer had no compelling evidence that they weren't, or that they couldn't afford them, because they didn't try to. And in this case, it would be up to them to prove they did, not the OP.

marliepanda · 24 November 2017 at 10:17AM

sangie595 wrote: »

I agree that it probably isn't a high value claim - but I suspect if the OP pushed one that they would win so the employer might be willing to offer a small settlement to avoid the fuss. But one always had to consider whether a low value claim is worth possible unintended consequences down the line. For example, right now they've probably forgotten him already, and in a couple of years he might want a job with them. Anyone who presses a claim won't be forgotten. Or maybe they happen to know a fair few local employers and share information on such things. Blacklists are illegal, so none exist... Do they? In a large city you might decide that the risk is worth it - in a small town, maybe not so much.

But you are failing to take into account the unique features of a discrimination claim. The OP had to prove that discrimination may have taken place. They can do that. Even you think it may have taken place. I'm pretty certain it did! Because the appropriate and safe approach for the employer should have been to refer to occupational health; or, indeed, to say that the OP should attend work and they would both see how it went, and look at adjustments if it wasn't working. They didn't even give it a shot at making it work - and that would be enough for possible discrimination. Once that is proven the employer must prove it didn't. And they have not a jot of evidence to show what they did to prove that. Assuming, of course, that the OP has given us the full details.

Yes, I agree that the OP played this badly and that there was no compelling evidence that the adjustments were necessary. But the employer had no compelling evidence that they weren't, or that they couldn't afford them, because they didn't try to. And in this case, it would be up to them to prove they did, not the OP.

Surely that works both ways, the employee didnt give it a shot either! How can an adjustment be reasonable, if their isnt anything to adjust from... Its like a wheelchair user demanding that everything be changed to fit their wheelchair, without actually seeing if they can access the building first.

As you say though, we don't have the full story. I very much doubt that the employer specifically said 'due to the adjustments youve asked for, we've decided to withdraw the offer' I think, and as the op says 'they can't accomodate me' that the job offer has been withdrawn with no mention of anything protected...

Cheeky_Monkey · 24 November 2017 at 11:36AM

I think the problem has arisen because the OP asked for two adjustments, one reasonable (the larger monitor) and one that wasn't either reasonable or necessary just because they're tall.

I think it's likely that the desk issue was the red flag and the employer probably thought that they would be a potential PITA.

The OP has said that previous employers have had no problem with the larger monitor but doesn't mention whether they were also given a raised desk.

sangie595 · 24 November 2017 at 12:25PM

marliepanda wrote: »

Surely that works both ways, the employee didnt give it a shot either! How can an adjustment be reasonable, if their isnt anything to adjust from... Its like a wheelchair user demanding that everything be changed to fit their wheelchair, without actually seeing if they can access the building first.

As you say though, we don't have the full story. I very much doubt that the employer specifically said 'due to the adjustments youve asked for, we've decided to withdraw the offer' I think, and as the op says 'they can't accomodate me' that the job offer has been withdrawn with no mention of anything protected...

I totally see your point - but the law doesn't work like that. The OP declared a condition that might amount to a disability (I'm not commenting on that aspect because the OP has never responded to any points on this matter), and asked for reasonable adjustments. At that specific point whether what they asked for was the right adjustment, whether it was needed, or whether something else entirely was needed is irrelevant. The employer should have examined the requests and if not possible, explained why. Not just withdrawn the offer without any further ado. That is the potential act of discrimination. Not refusing adjustments. The law doesn't state that the employee has to be reasonable - it does state that the employer must be. They acted precipitously and without good cause.

marliepanda · 24 November 2017 at 12:30PM

sangie595 wrote: »

I totally see your point - but the law doesn't work like that. The OP declared a condition that might amount to a disability (I'm not commenting on that aspect because the OP has never responded to any points on this matter), and asked for reasonable adjustments. At that specific point whether what they asked for was the right adjustment, whether it was needed, or whether something else entirely was needed is irrelevant. The employer should have examined the requests and if not possible, explained why. Not just withdrawn the offer without any further ado. That is the potential act of discrimination. Not refusing adjustments. The law doesn't state that the employee has to be reasonable - it does state that the employer must be. They acted precipitously and without good cause.

And if they simply said 'We have actually realised we cant accommodate you because we are overstaffed/someone has come back off sick/maternity early/our sales are down and we have no money' Although they said it after the requests, OP didnt say they turned it down by saying they cant put in a desk or monitor, just that they couldn't accommodate him.

As you said though, OP hasn't responded to the vast majority of replies so we are only guessing here.

Do I think they probably did withdraw due to his requests...Yes. Do I think they told him that specifically? No.

sangie595 · 24 November 2017 at 12:45PM

marliepanda wrote: »

And if they simply said 'We have actually realised we cant accommodate you because we are overstaffed/someone has come back off sick/maternity early/our sales are down and we have no money' Although they said it after the requests, OP didnt say they turned it down by saying they cant put in a desk or monitor, just that they couldn't accommodate him.

As you said though, OP hasn't responded to the vast majority of replies so we are only guessing here.

Do I think they probably did withdraw due to his requests...Yes. Do I think they told him that specifically? No.

I agree we are operating on poor information. But I think that if those were the words used there is sufficient doubt created that there was no other reason. If they had said one of the other things, yes, it'd be a stab in the dark with absolutely no chance of succeeding. But if they actually said they couldn't accommodate him, even with no specific reason given, after the requests, they are going to settle a claim. Full stop. Defending a discrimination claim for this sort of thing simply isn't worth it for them.

I don't disagree that I think the OP should have given the situation a trial and tried it, then asked if they needed it. And I don't necessarily even think they would be deemed disabled by a tribunal. But whether I think they acted well or not isn't relevant. The minute the employer was asked the question they should have been covering their backs in glory. That wouldn't even have made them a good employer, or resulted in any different an outcome. But it would have made them a clever employer....

pmduk · 24 November 2017 at 12:51PM

Either way, the OP might be better off without an employer who treats a disability with such a hands-off approach. It's not right in this day and age, but sometimes it's easier to avoid battles