Am I being discriminatory?

[bwglaw]

Playing devils advocate here (again out of interest)

If BL would not collect a person without a disability, that claimed walking along a road with no footpath was too dangerous, so they could attend a course, would that not mean that they are discriminating against the non disabled ? (maybe Jonathon could chime in here)

Surely there is a great argument here for getting an additional bus stop added that would save several people travelling issues.

It is perfectly legal to discriminate a non-disabled person (provided it is not in any way connected to their race, sex etc)

 

[SuffolkDesigns]

It is perfectly legal to discriminate a non-disabled person (provided it is not in any way connected to their race, sex etc)

See, I learn something new every day
so this is actually related to the OP's question, as telling a non disabled person "if you can't get here due to transport or because of timing of our opening hours" would be perfectly ok then ?

 

[Peter Jolley]

The jury is out.

Jonathan

I will keep an eye on the post

Pete

 

[bwglaw]

See, I learn something new every day
so this is actually related to the OP's question, as telling a non disabled person "if you can't get here due to transport or because of timing of our opening hours" would be perfectly ok then ?

Yes, perfectly OK.

If the person was disabled then the service provider would have a duty to make reasonable adjustments. What is reasonable would depend on the services the service provider provides, any resources, costs etc.

Adjusting the hours of business is not likely to be reasonable and is not likely to amount to an adjustment per se. However, as someone said that visiting a person at home may be reasonable but this depends on the services provided. It would be unreasonable for a shop (selling goods) to visit the disabled person but for a solicitor/accountant/financial advisor etc it is likely to be reasonable.

Having read Plaintext's posts there are some good points and in some circumstances it may be reasonable for either the training provider to change the venue only if the training is scheduled say, in 2 months time. The training provider only needs to show that they have tried to find an alternative venue but have not been successful. The training provider would then need to consider alternative methods i.e. provide a taxi, or arrange for someone to collect in view of the nominal cost.

Jonathan

 

[SuffolkDesigns]

What is reasonable would depend on the services the service provider provides, any resources, costs etc.

If a service provider cannot afford to make "reasonable adjustments" to accomodate the disabled would this exclude them from doing so ?

Really does seem to be a very vague subject that really is open to interpretation of the law. I would have thought it quite easy to get two identical cases at different locations and have two different outcomes.

 

I admire your honesty in this, it must be sorely tempting not to admit to having a seizure (unless you have to seek medical attention each time)

The fact is, it is a criminal offence not to disclose medical reasons that prevent you holiding a valid driving licence. I do know of a few - highly irresponsible - people with epilepsy who continue to drive when they shouldn't be doing so.

The DVLA's medical regulations are very clear.

They also take the view that those who are responsible and hand in their licence when required to do so are more likely to get it back. In fact, you can reapply after 10 months, as it takes around 8 weeks for them to process the paperwork and send it back to you. They expect people to be honest and behave responsibly. If you don't disclose (a legal requirement), and they find out later that you didn't tell them, the DVLA is likely to be disinclined to reissue the licence.

I doubt I would reapply if I managed to go 12 months seizure-free as I know another one could strike at any time and I wouldn't like to be behind the wheel of a car when it happened - I'd not only be risking my own life but others' too.

If I changed my medication, I know I could re-attain seizure-free status but it would mean going on a drug I have been on previously that would severely impact my quality of life. It's a question of balance. I'd rather be on the drug I take now and have few side effects and not drive than take one that would give me the chance to regain my licence but cause me horrible side effects, affect my ability to work and live an independent life, just so I could have a car again.

Swings and roundabouts...

99% of the time I can live quite happily without a car. But it's bloody frustrating when I need to be somewhere that I can't get to without 4 wheels.

 

The irony of this is that I only developed epilepsy 10 years ago, at age 35.

It was a shock, although not entirely unexpected as it runs in my family. I was put on medication and went two years without seizures so my neurologist agreed to let me come off the drugs (this is quite normal after two years). I went a further 18 months with no problems until it returned. Then it was back on the drugs. I continued to be seizure-free right up until the day I moved back to England from abroad when my ex-husband punched me in the head several times. That triggered everything again. Since then I have had to cope with worsening epilepsy.

Worsening in the sense that I no longer have 100% seizure control on medication and I now get mini seizures (sort of weird periods where I just don't feel "right" but don't have a proper seizure) as well.

I have never let my epilepsy affect me in the sense that I have continued to work, and do pretty much everything that people without epilepsy do, except drive. I'm very aware that I could have a seizure at any time and yes it's scary knowing that I might come round and discover I have injuries. I nearly burnt my other half's house down two weeks after I moved back to the UK because I lit the gas cooker to make dinner - he didn't get home until 90 minutes later. I'm thankful I only put potatoes on to boil and not a chip pan. He travels a lot on business and I can't cook for myself when he's away overnight - I have to rely on takeaways or microwaved leftovers.

I've come round with cracked ribs, concussion and facial lacerations.

That's the reality of living with this condition. But I just get on with life - it's too short not to.

 

[bwglaw]

If a service provider cannot afford to make "reasonable adjustments" to accomodate the disabled would this exclude them from doing so ?

There is an 'automatic' duty to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments. It is not 'automatic' to make reasonable adjustments as per my point earlier, costs etc. However, more to your point the service provider would need to take 'reasonable steps' to comply with the duty. Simply saying "I cannot afford it" may not be sufficient (depending on the size of the service provider) and it may be reasonable for the service provider to identify any source of funding etc.

Take for instance, Sainsbury's. They are indeed very large. They would be expected to go further in making reasonable adjustments than the local grocery shop in town because of the size and resources available to the service provider.

As a matter of fact when I conduct litigation against an employer or service provider one of the questions I put to them is to provide a copy of their accounts.

I should also reiterate my earlier point that service providers do not just have a duty to comply with a duty to make reasonable adjustments but they also, to put it simply, cannot discriminate disabled people by refusing to serve them, offer a service of a lesser standard or offer the service on different terms. For instance, if an estate agent normally requests 1 month's rent as deposit, but asks a wheelchair user to pay 2 months for fear of damaging door frames etc, this is likely to be unlawful

Really does seem to be a very vague subject that really is open to interpretation of the law. I would have thought it quite easy to get two identical cases at different locations and have two different outcomes.

It has been said that disability discrimination is the most complex area of law and it is very technical in many aspects. Your latter point, may appear true to the lay person but every case is different and there is rarely an identical case

Jonathan

 

[SuffolkDesigns]

For instance, if an estate agent normally requests 1 month's rent as deposit, but asks a wheelchair user to pay 2 months for fear of damaging door frames etc, this is likely to be unlawful

Totally agree with that !

If an apartment is on the 2nd floor would the landlord be required to make it accessable for a wheelchair if the tenant was wheelchair bound ? or even if a current tenant became wheelchair bound ?

 

It's also the case that the DDA has yet to be fully tested in court - it's up to the disabled to sue to test the law. That said, the DRC's attitude is to encourage businesses to comply with the law through persuasion and education rather than litigation.

 

[bwglaw]

Totally agree with that !

If an apartment is on the 2nd floor would the landlord be required to make it accessable for a wheelchair if the tenant was wheelchair bound ? or even if a current tenant became wheelchair bound ?

A good question. If asked that question I would not be able to fully answer because it overlaps with housing law which I do not specialise and I do not cover that aspect of the DDA. I mainly cover Parts 2 (Employment) and Part 3 (Goods, Facilities and Services). However, it will also depend on the landlord, whether he is private or a public landlord and this goes further into other laws which I do not specialise in.

Jonathan

 

[bwglaw]

It's also the case that the DDA has yet to be fully tested in court - it's up to the disabled to sue to test the law. That said, the DRC's attitude is to encourage businesses to comply with the law through persuasion and education rather than litigation.

Agree, but the DRC will not advise employers/service providers and will often be referred to the DRC website. When I worked for a large charity dealing with DDA cases I was often approached by employers who want to find out how to comply with the DDA but we were not allowed to advise them either!

Bit of a conundrum. Thats why I set up http://www.handsonaccess.com

 

[manchesterhypnosis]

I would agree with the position of the above posts, but I would not tell her to sod-off as their are some fairly vindictive people out there and it looks like you have fallen unlickily . One point I would say is make sure you have good legal cover, I am willing to pay through the nose for top notch legal insurance to cover me against people like this.

My huntch is to be vey cautious of this individual

All the best

Steve

 

[CaroCaro]

So is McDonalds being discriminatory against night shift workers who eat breakfast after 10.30am?

Customers hey?! The mind boggles.

This individual has obviously got a chip on her shoulder about working women. There is plently and I mean bucket loads of other stuff to do with kids during the summer holidays - we are completely spoilt for choice! Why she has to spend all her time and energy focusing on you, I have no idea.

Poor kid is all I can say.

I used to work in a very posh interiors shop, top end high price. Once this women was really going on and on about the price of a rug and the owner just snatched it out of her hand and said 'Bolton market Saturday afternoon, go there I am sure you will find what you are looking for' You should have seen the look on this womans face, priceless!