Forced to resign due to disability - need advice

sangie595

From one sufferer of exceptional endometriosis and adenomyosis for all my reproductive life, I can tell you right now that neither are classed as a disability. The pain is not constant - it is sporadic if chronic. And both are easily treatable, certainly in respect of pain - other aspects not so much but are not likely to impact on work. If the doctor thinks it is endo, then they need to get on with diagnosing it (easy) and treating it (easy). Endo is a health condition, not a disability. And it is not a long road to diagnosis. One simple surgical test done as a day patient, and the referral can be made by the GP in an instant.

NeilCr

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

@neil

I'm pretty sure the op is intelligent enough to see that what I was stating regarding the consqeunces her employer would face, was based merely on the outcome the off the two cases i referenced as case law directly above said statement.

Now your opinion and the stats you referenced don't change the outcome of the cases I referenced. Also don't forget the fact that many employers choose offer a settlement to their employee (former employee) prior to getting to tribunal, once their solicitors tell them they got no chance of winning. So its no surprise to see the stats on tribunal cases in the favour of the employer really. So they prove !!!!!! all really

Just to quote again what you actually said

"The OPs manager doesn't have a choice if he wants to avoid losing a tribunal claim and paying the op substantial damages!"


You asserted this. You didn't reference that to the two cases. If you'd added something like "but I am saying this if the OP's case is like the two I mentioned" then fine. But you didn't. And, as we all know from this thread, the OP is in a very difficult place so we need to bear that in mind.

Stats.

Hmm. Okay. Those of us in the real world do know that those stats reflect what happens. Not what people who live their life on the Internet think should happen. Certainly not a slam dunk case as you have intimated.

marliepanda

LilElvis wrote: »

So what reasonable adjustments would you suggest that the employer could make for the OP?

LilElvis you sweet summer child. Clearly everyone is entitled to dictate their working hours and duties and can be off whenever they want as everyone has a disability in law!! Have you not been keeping up?!

Genuineguy03

@neil

Considering I stated directly after and below the case law means in your personal opinion what I stated isn't link to what else was contain in the post. Given I was talking in the context of case law I think you find I was stating it as the likely outcome for the employer based on said case law.

As for stats. Sorry don't see how they reflect what happens in real world in your opinion that employees win only in 7% your conviently fogetting 51% withdraw prior to hearing that are settled either prior to ACAS mediation or as a result.of mediation not to mention the 1,000s more settled without starting down the route of tribunal. Must of those 51% withdrawals are likely to be down to settlement offer like I said before. So your stats actually contradict your point, but support mine.

@Lilelvis

The OP said she was struggle to do more than 20hrs. Therefore reduction in her hours is a reasonable adjustment

@sangie

And your speculating they don't have plenty of money.

Speculation aside, reducing OPs hours from full time to part time, doesn't cost them anything it safes them money.

Cost associated with taking on another part time worker is not reasonable justification to refuse a reduction in OPs hours, as its not a disportionate cost. There's one EAT case (crofts v butcher I think) that ruled it was unreasonable for the employer to not pay private medical care costs as it (the EAT) deemed such cost as a payment to supporting the employees continuing employment - Therefore said costs alone amount to being a reasonable adjustment.

@marlie

And where have I ever stated that everyone has a disability in law. All I ve ever said was a condition is a disability if its long term and effects their daily activities - I.e reaffirming what the legislation states. Oh and I won that argument too.

So yet more false accusations that I stated something I hadnt stated.

Now clearly where not getting anywhere here. No one has proved my wrong, and all you have used is your opinion and belief as to what the law is or miscontruded, twisted, took out of context, changed to your own context things I actually have stated. Whilst making up things they I haven't stated.Hell even relying on stats to try prove a point, when said stats did the opposite and support my response to said stats.

So carry on as much as you little hearts contend. Because I shan't reply unless someone actually proves i am wrong. Plus I got better things to do then go round and round in circles with people who can't accept they are fighting a battle they've already lost.

marliepanda

Oh wow, add paying for private medical care alongside tailoring the job to suit the needs!

My job is rubbish! I have to do what I’m told when they tell me to. Better get myself IBS...

Casey1709

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

.....
I shan't reply unless someone actually proves i am wrong.
.....

Can I sue you if you ever reply again.

You have clearly never run a business if you think employing 2 or more people to do one full time job is as cheap as employing one person. It can give you flexibility, holiday cover, motivated staff but it sure ain’t as cheap as one person and can have all sorts of other problems like who is doing what and how work is handed over between etc.

[Deleted User]

This new wannabe expert is a proper numpty

Genuineguy03

Personal insults. Yet still nothing that proves I wrong! Very mature.

Its clear some here have a lack of understanding as what is a justifiable cost for an employer to pay towards making reasonable adjustments to enable an employee to continue there employment as to not be discriminated against. And what would be disportionate. End of they day its for the employer to consider what costs is justifiable to them or disportionate NOT YOU GUYS. But if they decide its disportionate they have to prove that it is to a tribunal, if a claim is issued. And in this case reducing the OPs hours doesn't cost anything, and taking on someone part time to job share doesn't either (advertising costs etc are deemed as operational costs) - neither would allocating some of the OPs duties or workload to another employee.

Some employers employ personal assistances, lip readers, interpretors (sign language) to assist an employee as a reasonable adjustment to enable the employee to continue their employment. Some purchase equipment such as motorised wheelchairs (an reasonable adjustment) to enable the employee to continue employment.

marliepanda

Genuineguy03 wrote: »

Personal insults. Yet still nothing that proves I wrong! Very mature.

Its clear some here have a lack of understanding as what is a justifiable cost for an employer to pay towards making reasonable adjustments to enable an employee to continue there employment as to not be discriminated against. And what would be disportionate. End of they day its for the employer to consider what costs is justifiable to them or disportionate NOT YOU GUYS. But if they decide its disportionate they have to prove that it is to a tribunal, if a claim is issued. And in this case reducing the OPs hours doesn't cost anything, and taking on someone part time to job share doesn't either (advertising costs etc are deemed as operational costs) - neither would allocating some of the OPs duties or workload to another employee.

Some employers employ personal assistances, lip readers, interpretors (sign language) to assist an employee as a reasonable adjustment to enable the employee to continue their employment. Some purchase equipment such as motorised wheelchairs (an reasonable adjustment) to enable the employee to continue employment.

Seriously if it’s so easy, as you say, how are people EVER dismissed of incapability grounds?

Genuineguy03

_shel

Oh how little you and the others know shel. I've already told the MSE team in my email compliant
to them as to who I am on other forums. Let's just say if you knew you'd all be looking up to me and respectful of my advise. Let's just say I was more or less a resident employment law advisor on one. I still can post there if I wanted too as left on good terms. But that's the past. And no I won't be saying who I am, though MSE team may confirm my years of experience on advising in employment law (without disclosing any usernames too you)

Best bit is, I may have even got along with some of you. You may gave even asked my advice or used my advice given to others to advise people in same/similar situation.

So yeah guess you could say your all on notice.

As for having a business ROFPMSL - you couldn't be further from the truth if you tried.