Partner with IBS refused SSP

Genuineguy03

Lilevis

If you go back to my first post, you will see I was responding to no other post, but to what the OP described as to the circumstances. Only to then have my advice called out and disputed.

Yes am more aware that its the degree to which the condition effects someone that's the determining factor. But I shouldn't need to explain that and/or write an essay on it to satisfy the needs of others here. Especially when from what the OP described on how it effected them, shows it has a substantial effect. Plus I wasn't having a general debate about it in my first post either.

Now the OP might find the following case law useful, along with some others here - Tiquin v Abbey National plc. As it specially about IBS and disability discrimination and reasonable adjustments. Though not sure if full judgement is published online anywhere - the claiment won though.

soolin

t0rt0ise wrote: »

Why do you think your son would not be considered disabled under the Act? I bet if it were put to a test he would be.

He manages to work and have a very good social life. He and his OH travel the world and go to exotic places, he just has to plan everything via available loos and adjustment to his diet based on how well he is. Most people don't even know he has it.

Genuineguy03

Nicechap

How about posting my entire post and not just bits to support your attempt to take my post out of context.

Here's bit you missed where I mentioned effects on daily activtis. "In regards to IBS being a disability. Yes it is if it has a substantial impact on day to day activities, which from the OPs description it does"

Granted I did mention about long term effect in the first post as that in that was self explanatory in the OPs own posts that it was a long term condition, same as to which degree of the conditions effects on the OP. As I said in previous post. I shouldn't have to wright a full on essay about it. And cover every single element to satisfy the needs of others.

TSx

soolin wrote: »

He manages to work and have a very good social life. He and his OH travel the world and go to exotic places, he just has to plan everything via available loos and adjustment to his diet based on how well he is. Most people don't even know he has it.

I'm fairly confident this could be considered a disability under the Equality Act - personal opinion, based on years of time spent dealing with absence management cases. For the purposes of the act, someone is considered disabled if their condition has a physical or mental impairment and the impairment has a substantial and long term adverse affect on their ability to carry out normal day to day activities.

I hope we can agree that there is a physical impairment, and it does have a long term effect on the ability to carry out day to day activities (having to plan some days around toilet facilities).

The question is then if this is a subtantial effect or not. The guidance for the act suggests if the impairment is worse than the general person to person variation then it can be considered substantial. An example given in the guidance is someone with OCD who can't leave the house without checking and rechecking the plugs and switches would be considered a substantial impairment.

That said, unless it is one of the prescribed disabilities, whether someone is considered disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act is down to the individual facts. The guidance says that minor infrequent incontinence issues would be considered unsubstantial, "Difficulty carrying out activities associated with toileting, or caused by frequent minor incontinence" would be considered substantial and therefore be something considered under the Equality Act.

Once you have established someone is 'protected' under the Equality Act, you need to consider what reasonable adjustments can be made to help them at work. That could be as simple as your son being allowed toilet breaks whenever he needs them, or being allowed more time than others to use the toilet. I have a condition which effects my foot from time to time, and the reasonable adjustment my employer made is to allow me to wear trainers when I am in pain (contrary to our dress code).

The key is that the Equality Act doesn't give you the right to have as much absence as you want. It may be reasonable to allow more time than normal away from work to attend hospital appointments, or even to allow a higher level of absence than others. It is never going to be considered reasonable to allow unlimited absences from work.

I believe (although I'm not certain so I won't state as fact) that what is reasonable also depends on the employer. A small corner shop with 4 members of staff may find a particular adjusment unreasonable, whilst a call centre with 200 members of staff may easily be able to accommodate it.

And a final point - the Equality Act has a very specific definition of a disability which is much looser than we might consider when talking about disabled people. Many, many people will fall under the umbrella of the Equality Act who wouldn't be considered disabled by any other authority (e.g for benefits purposes or a blue badge)

Government guidance on the Equality Act: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/570382/Equality_Act_2010-disability_definition.pdf

Undervalued

TSx wrote: »

I believe (although I'm not certain so I won't state as fact) that what is reasonable also depends on the employer. A small corner shop with 4 members of staff may find a particular adjusment unreasonable, whilst a call centre with 200 members of staff may easily be able to accommodate it.

That is correct.

Ultimately it all comes down to what a judge, guided by his interpretation of the law and by the interpretation made by higher courts in similar cases, decides is "reasonable".

Lots of "disability" employment cases are a very close call and whist the OP should certainly take proper legal advice, ultimately even that is only a (hopefully expert) opinion as to what a court might decide.

Manxman_in_exile

In discussion on another thread Genuineguy03 concluded that I had a protected characteristic simply on the basis that my GP had prescribed an anti-depressant. I'm 60, have only been prescribed (or should that be diagnosed?) in the last three months, and my daily activities are not affected to any significant extent. I don't consider it to be a disability at all.


Gg03 seems to reach black and white conclusions whenever anxiety/stress/IBS is mentioned, and then takes multiple posts to refine and qualify their original opinion and fill in the "grey" bits.



EDIT: There's also a couple of posts here Gg03 is very confusing. I can't remember the exact wording (and I can't be bothered to go back) but in one post they refer to something like " long standing OR significant impact" and in a later post they say "long standing AND significant impact". They may think this is a word game but I think these two statements are fundamentally different. (Post #42 "and"; post #45 "or").

Manxman_in_exile

TSx wrote: »

The question is then if this is a subtantial effect or not. The guidance for the act suggests if the impairment is worse than the general person to person variation then it can be considered substantial. An example given in the guidance is someone with OCD who can't leave the house without checking and rechecking the plugs and switches would be considered a substantial impairment.

I may be missing your point (apologies if I am) but what could an employer reasonably do about this?


I have done this all my life and has never affected my work. How would it?

TSx

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

I may be missing your point (apologies if I am) but what could an employer reasonably do about this?


I have done this all my life and has never affected my work. How would it?

Very little, I suspect. It’s going to depend on how the condition affects work though. It may be that someone who has OCD and occasionally struggles to leave as they keep returning home to check the locks. A potential reasonable adjustment would be to allow some flexibility with starting times. If this is reasonable will ultimately depend on the business needs and impact accommodating it will have

It could also be as simple as allowing time during working hours for appointments to do with the condition

SingleSue

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

I may be missing your point (apologies if I am) but what could an employer reasonably do about this?


I have done this all my life and has never affected my work. How would it?

It causes a lot of giggles at my place as I check and recheck locked doors, the float, switches and everything else umpteen times. I giggle with them I hasten to add, I prefer to laugh about my issues rather than dwell on them.

One thing is for sure, at least they know that the place is secure every time I leave it and that everything tallies as it should do.

As for leaving the house, I just plan in extra time (another OCD thing of mine, planning!)

I also have IBS, all of us do actually apart from youngest who is coeliac with a load of food intolerances. Youngest always makes sure he is not too far away from a loo, will not eat if easy access/timing is not available, as he is at university, he is staying in halls very close to where his lectures are held so that he can get back quickly if need be. During his summer job, he just doesn't eat until he gets home as a loo is not easy to get to in time, same with journeys, he doesn't touch a thing until he reaches home.

Middle son also has halls close to his lectures for the same reason.

Manxman_in_exile

SingleSue wrote: »

It causes a lot of giggles at my place as I check and recheck locked doors, the float, switches and everything else umpteen times. I giggle with them I hasten to add, I prefer to laugh about my issues rather than dwell on them.

One thing is for sure, at least they know that the place is secure every time I leave it and that everything tallies as it should do.

As for leaving the house, I just plan in extra time (another OCD thing of mine, planning!)

I also have IBS, all of us do actually apart from youngest who is coeliac with a load of food intolerances. Youngest always makes sure he is not too far away from a loo, will not eat if easy access/timing is not available, as he is at university, he is staying in halls very close to where his lectures are held so that he can get back quickly if need be. During his summer job, he just doesn't eat until he gets home as a loo is not easy to get to in time, same with journeys, he doesn't touch a thing until he reaches home.

Middle son also has halls close to his lectures for the same reason.

Yeah - I always saw it as an advantage, not a disability!