Partner with IBS refused SSP

nicechap

I think our new best friend has read this but stopped at Chapter 3.

C_Mababejive

Just digressing slightly,how would employers know they were complying with the equality act? Are they required to keep a register of those who choose to identify as having a disability or have been clinically identified as such? I doubt it..

marliepanda

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Just digressing slightly,how would employers know they were complying with the equality act? Are they required to keep a register of those who choose to identify as having a disability or have been clinically identified as such? I doubt it..

Its really more about providing people with equal opportunities, not necessarily equal experiences. And of course they would need to be aware of the disability and the changes that may work.

Quite often people think its the employers job to make it easier for someone with a disability to do a job. Its not really the case, the employer just needs to make it possible (within reason) for the employee to do the job, so providing ramp access, adapted seats/peripherals, etc.

Really a lot of the equality act is just being reasonable! Unfortunately quit often the demands made under the guise of the equality act are unreasonable! No employer is required to change the job description, hours, place of work, nature of work to suit anyone else, disability or not.

Comms69

marliepanda wrote: »

Its really more about providing people with equal opportunities, not necessarily equal experiences. And of course they would need to be aware of the disability and the changes that may work.

Quite often people think its the employers job to make it easier for someone with a disability to do a job. Its not really the case, the employer just needs to make it possible (within reason) for the employee to do the job, so providing ramp access, adapted seats/peripherals, etc.

Really a lot of the equality act is just being reasonable! Unfortunately quit often the demands made under the guise of the equality act are unreasonable! No employer is required to change the job description, hours, place of work, nature of work to suit anyone else, disability or not.

Potentially these could be reasonable adjustments. I wouldn't put it as a blanket statement.


But I agree with the sentiment

Genuineguy03

As I said in another post, I suggest people research what reasonable adjustments are and what responsibilities the employer has towards employees that have become I'll or disabled, regardless as to it being a known condition prior to employment or a condition that came about whilst in employment.

I know some think I lied about my experience in advising on employment law for over 10 years. However some of you probably got on with me and trusted my advice in the past on other forums. But I not going to say who I am on those forums, as I don't have to prove anything to anyone here. If you disagree with my advice, prove its wrong, post to case law, legislation etc etc to back up your claim. But then no doubt some will twist the interpretation if said case law and leguslation anyway.

[Deleted User]

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

As I said in another post, I suggest people research what reasonable adjustments are and what responsibilities the employer has towards employees that have become I'll or disabled, regardless as to it being a known condition prior to employment or a condition that came about whilst in employment.

I know some think I lied about my experience in advising on employment law for over 10 years. However some of you probably got on with me and trusted my advice in the past on other forums. But I not going to say who I am on those forums, as I don't have to prove anything to anyone here. If you disagree with my advice, prove its wrong, post to case law, legislation etc etc to back up your claim. But then no doubt some will twist the interpretation if said case law and leguslation anyway.

Why don't YOU point us to case Law that states IBS is a disability at all times. Or in fact the claim that a letter from a gp is enough to meet the definition?

kingfisherblue

_shel wrote: »

Why don't YOU point us to case Law that states IBS is a disability at all times. Or in fact the claim that a letter from a gp is enough to meet the definition?

I agree with this. After all, if you take me as an example, I'm certain that nobody would think that I have a disability - I definitely don't think of myself as disabled! I have IBS, as do other members of my family. At times, it can be uncomfortable, painful, inconvenient, limit the tasks that I carry out on a daily basis, and in my mum's case, it also means that she wears incontinence pants when she goes out.

However, it is not a disability for me (or my mum, or other family members). It's an annoying condition that gets in the way of life sometimes, but it's not a disability in my case. There may be other cases where it is, but I really don't think that anybody can make a sweeping statement that it is a disability. It is how each individual is affected.

Genuineguy03

Raynor v turning point I've mentioned in other threads

And I don't recall saying IBS in a disability at all times. However it is a long term condition, regardless to severity. And it also can have substantial effect on a suffered to daily activities, daily doesn't necessary mean everyday, just days in which they are effected by it.

So those who may not consider themselves disabled whist IBS, do to it not effecting them everyday or if its mild that according to law the are disabled. Law isn't optional, personal opinion is.so its a personal choice to not consider oneself disabled, not choice based on law. And its law we should advise people on here, not ones personal choice.

[Deleted User]

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

Raynor v turning point I've mentioned in other threads

And I don't recall saying IBS in a disability at all times. However it is a long term condition, regardless to severity. And it also can have substantial effect on a suffered to daily activities, daily doesn't necessary mean everyday, just days in which they are effected by it.

So those who may not consider themselves disabled whist IBS, do to it not effecting them everyday or if its mild that according to law the are disabled. Law isn't optional, personal opinion is.so its a personal choice to not consider oneself disabled, not choice based on law. And its law we should advise people on here, not ones personal choice.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

marliepanda

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

Raynor v turning point I've mentioned in other threads

And I don't recall saying IBS in a disability at all times. However it is a long term condition, regardless to severity. And it also can have substantial effect on a suffered to daily activities, daily doesn't necessary mean everyday, just days in which they are effected by it.

So those who may not consider themselves disabled whist IBS, do to it not effecting them everyday or if its mild that according to law the are disabled. Law isn't optional, personal opinion is.so its a personal choice to not consider oneself disabled, not choice based on law. And its law we should advise people on here, not ones personal choice.

There is no law stating those with IBS are considered disabled 'in law'.

If you are truly an employment expert with 10 years experience, please show me the law stating all those with IBS are considered disabled.