Gout and the DDA...

ohreally

Hi all, i need a bit of help. Can anyone provide information relating to gout and the DDA in terms of employment and reasonable adjustments for sufferers? Some time ago i found an article in which gout had been specifically recognised under the act however i am unable to retrieve this and can't find the resource where i originally found the info.If anyone can point me in the direction of gout, it's affects and the recognition of under the act, i'd appreciate it.

fatnbald

Not sure how Gout falls under the DDA as it is manageable condition rather than a disability.

Gout can be an excruciating condition which can temporarily prevent walking as it primarily (though not exclusively) affects the joints in the feet.

Contrary to popular belief it is more of a genetic problem than a reflection of the lifestyle of the sufferer, that said some foods and drinks can trigger an attack or make the condition worse. Something as innocent as a knock or bang can also trigger an attack.
Regular sufferers can take medication to control the build up of Uric acid in the body, this acid settles in the joints and forms crystals within the joints which causes the intense pain, it is like having ground glass in between the joint surfaces.


I have the odd attack of gout but because they are infrequent do not bother with the medication, although the attacks can be very painful!

dmg24

fatnbald, I don't think you really understand the provisions of the DDA.

ohreally, could this be helpful?

Backland v HM Revenue and Customs (case 2100860-05 Liverpool Employment Tribunal)

Mr Backland, who has arthritis and gout, claimed that he had been discriminated against by his employer, when, as a result of taking sick leave; he was put on ‘inefficiency procedures’.

Mr Backland was employed as a Revenue Assistant. The length of a period of absence from work triggered a referral to the employer’s occupational healthadvisors. The report confirmed that the absence was in respect of an underlying medical condition which could flare up again and give rise to further absence.

He was advised that an informal Managing Attendance and Performance period would be set during which his attendance would be monitored and an improvement sought. However, in other cases, the employer had discounted sickness absences related to an employee’s disability.

Mr Backland claimed that by putting him on inefficiency procedures, his employer had treated him less favourably and that the treatment amounted to direct discrimination. The tribunal concluded that a reasonable adjustment should have been made with the employer considering discounting sickness absence relating to the recurring illness, as Mr Backland argued had happened in other cases.

The treatment amounted to direct discrimination, which cannot be justified.

creamcheese

How about contacting the Disability Rights Commision? They should be able to advise whether gout is included under the DDA and any reasonable adjustments an employer should be making.

dmg24

Also, lots of information here.

Fleago

Is this the case you have in mind, ohreally? It's on pages 26/27, but that's the only online reference I can find for it.

However, my view would be that irrespective of the condition diagnosed, it would still come down to the usual criteria, substantial impact, long term etc - you know them all. There was a recent case that found that there didn't even need to be a formal diagnosis of a condition for a person to be considered disabled under the Act. I'm having a horrible brain-not-working moment and can't remember the name of the case or the exact details, but from what I remember, it was concerned with continence issues having the substantial impact.

Reasonable adjustments would again depend on the issues the person was having in work relating to their condition.

I don't think I've really been much help though!

Fleago

:rotfl: dmg found it first! We must have been typing about the same time!

Fleago

dmg24 wrote: »

Also, lots of information here.

That's an excellent reference, dmg! Thank you, I'll be able to utilise that one!

ohreally

I came across the Backland case shortly after posting,I'll have a read through it later. Ideally I'm hoping to locate some cases (case law) which are specific to the condition where the gout suffering employee has secured a relaxing of sickness absence management procedures.

ohreally

Fleago wrote: »

However, my view would be that irrespective of the condition diagnosed, it would still come down to the usual criteria, substantial impact, long term etc - you know them all.

My immediate problem is this has been dropped on my lap and the occupational health consultant who will be contacted to provide expert opinion is reluctant to agree that gout is covered by the DDA.

I can foresee a potential pitfall with the Backland case as it appears to have been won on grounds of less favourable treatment rather than the gout, this may not apply to my circumstance.

dmg24

ohreally wrote: »

I came across the Backland case shortly after posting,I'll have a read through it later. Ideally I'm hoping to locate some cases (case law) which are specific to the condition where the gout suffering employee has secured a relaxing of sickness absence management procedures.

It may be easier to establish the effects that the individual's condition has that leads to them being covered by the DDA, then relating those effects (as opposed to the condition itself) to other cases where the sickness absence management has been (or should have been) relaxed.

Alternatively, you could look for experts in the area who have recommended such an adaptation, and use them to validate your assertion.

I've been looking at doing my Masters in Employment Law in September - and you've just given me an idea for my dissertation! x