DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT - reasonable adaptations

LittleVoice

ohreally wrote: »

An impairment should have been present for 12 months to qualify, there is no requirement under the act for the impairment to be lifelong.

Edit: Only after posting did i realise Flego had already supplied that information.

Just to point out that the condition does not have to have already existed for 12 months. The point is that it is a question of it being likely to last at least 12 months.

Flego's link does show that.

ohreally

I'll concede my choice of wording was poor on this occasion. The issue to be addressed is clearly the employers failure to understand the duty imposed by the act.Whether it's deliberate or born from ignorance is for anoneemouse to establish when directing questions to the employer.

Anoneemouse, if you genuinely suspect your employer is deliberately failing in their duty of care towards you and are in breach of the DDA, i can send you a questionnaire to submit to your employer which the should respond to and explain why they think they are not in breach.I'll have to dig it out so let me know if you think it may help you.If memory serves i may have picked it up from the then Disability rights commission.

Fleago

anoneemouse wrote: »

Thanks for that. Guess - from that - there might be a problem with whether holding down a job constituted a normal "everyday activity". Obviously eating/washing/walking/shopping are and we all clearly need to be able to do these. I would rate a job as a normal everyday activity as well - as many of us have to have one and duly do so if we can.

Hi anoneemouse,

No, work's not included as a normal day to day activity for the purposes of the Act. If you go to this link and scroll down to section C, "normal day to day activities", it explains why and also lists the things that must be affected for a person to be disabled under the Act.*

Fleago

* PS The link will ask you if you wish to open the document - it's quite safe to do so as it's an archived document from the old DRC website.

anoneemouse

Fleago wrote: »

Hi anoneemouse,

No, work's not included as a normal day to day activity for the purposes of the Act. If you go to this link and scroll down to section C, "normal day to day activities", it explains why and also lists the things that must be affected for a person to be disabled under the Act.*

Fleago

* PS The link will ask you if you wish to open the document - it's quite safe to do so as it's an archived document from the old DRC website.

Thanks for that - I wasnt physically able unfortunately to opon the link - it came up with some sort of Open Office error (maybe something to do with fact that I have Open Office installed on my pc anyway - could be the way its been installed at my end?). Dont suppose I could beg a favour and ask if its possible to reproduce the relevant sections on here is it? <please nicely she says with a smile>

Fleago

Better still, if you PM me your email address, I will send you a copy of the whole document as I think you might find it useful. I've got Open Office as well as Word on my computer, so will save it in Open Office and it should open up ok for you.

Fleago

anoneemouse

Fleago wrote: »

Better still, if you PM me your email address, I will send you a copy of the whole document as I think you might find it useful. I've got Open Office as well as Word on my computer, so will save it in Open Office and it should open up ok for you.

Fleago

Thanks for that - will take you up on it. Have PM'ed you.

anoneemouse

Horace

As a person who is classed as disabled under the DDA, when working for my last employer, I contacted Access to Work via the Job Centre and they sent someone to assess my working enviroment, as a result, I was advised to get a screen magnifier (software), a daylight lamp and camera-type magnifier - Access to Work paid for the bulk of the cost but the employer had to make their contribution. Just because the employer has made a contribution towards the cost, the items do not belong to them but to the person. When I was made redundant, I kept all the items and my new employer only wanted disabled people to work for them (discrimination in reverse) and so Access to Work have been involved before I even start work.