# equality act - important changes



## bev (Oct 14, 2010)

http://www.ecu.ac.uk/your-questions/pre-employment-health-questionnaires

Thought this might be relevant to some who are applying for jobs - you dont have to tell your future employee in the early stages that you have any health conditions.Bev


----------



## Caroline (Oct 14, 2010)

The firm I work for is pretty understanding about different medical problems and everyones abilities, but not all employers are.

Some jobs it is better to be up front about things, one of the jobs I applied for a long time ago required me to lead people across the roof to safety in an emergency. This requirement wasn't obvious until the interview. I have problems with heights and said so. Had this requirement been more obvious at application stage I would not have wasted my time in applying.


----------



## imtrying (Oct 14, 2010)

thanks Bev!

as a general rule I don't put it down until I have received my contract and signed it. then on my first day I will tell my new line manager (just to be responsible rather than a case of disclosing it).

as I work in HR, this will be interesting to see if it makes a difference at all!


----------



## am64 (Oct 14, 2010)

i disclosed immediately with this job and they are cool with it all ...especially with me getting such a rotten cold one week in ...however i am lucky to be working with a charity that was set up to help those with mental health and disabilities to be able to work !


----------



## Einstein (Oct 15, 2010)

Under the DDA you didn't have to disclose any disability during the application or interview stages. And the prospective employer couldn't ask you leading questions either.

The Equality Act 2010 in many ways offers little difference, except the basis of 'reasonable adjustment' to cater for the disabled can't be fudged with answers such as 'health and safety' now it isn't the service providor who determines what acceptable change is, but the person looking to gain access.

For example, if a diabetic wanted to work in a factory, the company couldn't say they were a health and safety risk to themself or others because they were at risk of hypos. It would be down to the employer to work with the employee to set a suitable break and testing regime to ensure the employee received the due support they required.

HOWEVER, if the employee doesn't take control of their condition and levels then they could prove a risk to the health and safety of all around and as such H&S law doesn't apportion blame to a single party, but to all parties, everyone is responsible for their own actions, and the employer for making sure that all enviromental and control procedures are in place and able to be implemented and monitored reliably.

Such a fun area!


----------



## bev (Oct 15, 2010)

Einstein said:


> Under the DDA you didn't have to disclose any disability during the application or interview stages. And the prospective employer couldn't ask you leading questions either.
> 
> The Equality Act 2010 in many ways offers little difference, except the basis of 'reasonable adjustment' to cater for the disabled can't be fudged with answers such as 'health and safety' now it isn't the service providor who determines what acceptable change is, but the person looking to gain access.
> 
> ...



Your quite right, but I think lots of prospective employees had assumed that they had to disclose their condition from the start and this obviously would have put them in a less favourable position than others. Now it just gives people the 'permission' not to disclose it and is clearer than before.


Other changes that might effect parents on here are that within the school area, making 'reasonable adjustments' to encompass looking after a diabetic child can now include any 'auxillary help' required (i.e. school providing a 1;1 for a particular purpose) - and also people who run after school actitivites are also now covered by the EA and have to abide by the rules of making 'reasonable adjustment' to make sure a child is safe.

Carers who work are also now covered in the 'discrimination by association' - where an employee cant refuse time off to look after a diabetic/disabled child as this would be deemed to be discrimination. 

There are other changes but its such a long document its hard to find the relevant parts - but I would urge everyone to have a read as this superceeds the DDA and has made things a lot clearer.Bev


----------



## imtrying (Oct 15, 2010)

you are all such a fountain of knowledge  I love it on here!


----------



## Einstein (Oct 15, 2010)

bev said:


> Your quite right, but I think lots of prospective employees had assumed that they had to disclose their condition from the start and this obviously would have put them in a less favourable position than others. Now it just gives people the 'permission' not to disclose it and is clearer than before.
> 
> 
> Other changes that might effect parents on here are that within the school area, making 'reasonable adjustments' to encompass looking after a diabetic child can now include any 'auxillary help' required (i.e. school providing a 1;1 for a particular purpose) - and also people who run after school actitivites are also now covered by the EA and have to abide by the rules of making 'reasonable adjustment' to make sure a child is safe.
> ...



One consideration of voluntary activitieis and if the organisation/individual is or isn't exempt from part of the EA is the legal status of the 'provider' e.g. the individual, in many charities they are deemed as volunteers, in others they are employees.

There are legal cases where both work and both fail, where the natural extension of policy and liability is useful but other legislation makes the role change impossible without potential huge legal implications across the board.

It's unfortunately one are of legislation that the then government didn't spend enough time or energy on and as such it could be manipulated.

The hope is that lawyers don't take to the EA as they did to the DDA with hatchetts.

From having sat on both sides of the table as an employer and disabled employee, personally I would much rather be 100% upfront with any prospective employee about my disabilities. If I wasn't, then joined their firm and these began to come out, surely the employer (being human) starts to ask what else in my CV and at interview didn't I disclose.

Of course for the prospective employer 'not to know' is the best defense when they come to dismiss a candidate from the selection process, to know about their disability at that point makes it harder for them to register a 'not suitable' against them.

With all the legislation in the world there will always be another excuse as to why you're not the one.

As diabetics the issue of self control is all critical and it's down to the individual to ensure they do all that is possible to manage their health and be in a position to work a normal working week with no significant health imposed interruptions. After all, if you won't help your own case, why should anyone else give you a chance?

Perhaps harsh, but one I see as fair and reasonable.


----------



## bev (Oct 15, 2010)

As diabetics the issue of self control is all critical and it's down to the individual to ensure they do all that is possible to manage their health and be in a position to work a normal working week with no significant health imposed interruptions. After all, if you won't help your own case, why should anyone else give you a chance?

Perhaps harsh, but one I see as fair and reasonable.
__________________

I agree with you, in principle, but I do think that for some people, control of their diabetes is harder than for others. It would be unfair to have the attitude that you *should* avoid all possible health imposed interruptions, when in some cases this would be hard to achieve. Diabetes is a very individual condition and what can lay one person low - might not necessarily do the same to another diabetic in the same set of circumstances.

Clearly, if someone is not managing their diabetic care deliberately then they should not expect to be protected by the employer.Bev


----------



## imtrying (Oct 15, 2010)

Einstein said:


> From having sat on both sides of the table as an employer and disabled employee, personally I would much rather be 100% upfront with any prospective employee about my disabilities. If I wasn't, then joined their firm and these began to come out, surely the employer (being human) starts to ask what else in my CV and at interview didn't I disclose.
> 
> Of course for the prospective employer 'not to know' is the best defense when they come to dismiss a candidate from the selection process, to know about their disability at that point makes it harder for them to register a 'not suitable' against them.



Sorry Einstein but I have to say I don't share the same opinion about telling employers before being appointed about my condition....my reasoning behind this is that it is personal to me and not something I want to shout about; they don't ask - equal opps forms ask about DDA but as my condition is well controlled, it doesn't affect my ability to do my job so my diabetes is not actually covered under the DDA; and finally just because I didn't tell them I was diabetic before joining, should not suggest to anyone that I have been lying about anything. I don't disclose any other medical history to them and my diabetes does not significantly affect my ability to carry out my job.

I know this will vary from diabetic to diabetic though.


----------



## Copepod (Oct 15, 2010)

Nice to see you back, Einstein.
My approach is to disclose what is relevent, and to make initial enquires to avoid wasting my time and potential employers' time eg if driving is mentioned, I check what type of vehicles, as on a restricted licence, I am only allowed to drive category B (car up to 8 seats & 750kg), BE (car & trailer), F (tractor) K (mowing machine) L (electric vehicle) N (very short distances on public roads) P (moped), plus provisional entitlement for A (motorbike), G (road rollers), H (tracked vehicles), so if job advert mentions driving minibuses, vans, buses etc I need to check what they actually mean. Frustratingly, this rules out applying for several jobs.


----------



## bev (Oct 15, 2010)

imtrying said:


> Sorry Einstein but I have to say I don't share the same opinion about telling employers before being appointed about my condition....my reasoning behind this is that it is personal to me and not something I want to shout about; they don't ask - equal opps forms ask about DDA but as my condition is well controlled, it doesn't affect my ability to do my job so my diabetes is not actually covered under the DDA; and finally just because I didn't tell them I was diabetic before joining, should not suggest to anyone that I have been lying about anything. I don't disclose any other medical history to them and my diabetes does not significantly affect my ability to carry out my job.
> 
> I know this will vary from diabetic to diabetic though.



All disability is covered by the DDA - but it is your choice as to whether you want to use this in any way to provide help and support if you feel that you are being treated less favourably due to your diabetes. Whether you are well controlled or not doesnt come into it. You might be overlooked for promotion and this could be because you are diabetic and the manager would prefer someone without a health condition to do a particular job , or he may just be an idiot who thinks that any disability is a flaw! I have probably misunderstood what you were trying to say - so will apologise in advance if I have!Bev


----------



## imtrying (Oct 15, 2010)

bev said:


> All disability is covered by the DDA - but it is your choice as to whether you want to use this in any way to provide help and support if you feel that you are being treated less favourably due to your diabetes. Whether you are well controlled or not doesnt come into it. You might be overlooked for promotion and this could be because you are diabetic and the manager would prefer someone without a health condition to do a particular job , or he may just be an idiot who thinks that any disability is a flaw! I have probably misunderstood what you were trying to say - so will apologise in advance if I have!Bev



haha this could become an interesting debate!! 

from a personal point of view, I don't consider myself disabled at all....probably based on the fact I don't have any complications.

However, with regards to the DDA and diabetes, I had always been under the impression its covered if it affects your ability to do your job....so I suppose we're both kind of right! here's something I found when I googled...

"In many cases, people with diabetes will be considered to be disabled for the purposes of the Act;

Whether or not someone is disabled will depend on their own individual circumstances;"

any other views would be really interesting to hear 

"or he may just be an idiot who thinks that any disability is a flaw!" - and that made me chuckle out loud!! hahaha!


----------



## novorapidboi26 (Oct 15, 2010)

imtrying said:


> haha this could become an interesting debate!!
> 
> from a personal point of view, I don't consider myself disabled at all....probably based on the fact I don't have any complications.
> 
> ...



I have read that article too, basically the DDA is there to prevent discrimination in the work place and so on............so by stating your diabetic to an employer does not mean your disabled, only that you are covering you own a*s in the event there is discrimintion, which unfortunately there can be...

I would always tell my employer , just means your first in the q for special treatment..........yay........


----------



## imtrying (Oct 15, 2010)

novorapidboi26 said:


> I have read that article too, basically the DDA is there to prevent discrimination in the work place and so on............so by stating your diabetic to an employer does not mean your disabled, only that you are covering you own a*s in the event there is discrimintion, which unfortunately there can be...
> 
> I would always tell my employer , just means your first in the q for special treatment..........yay........



thanks 

I do tell them, but I normally leave it until the first day just to make them aware in case I'm shoving chocolate down my throat etc. I wouldn't tell anyone before I started - not because I think anything would happen, just preference I suppose


----------



## novorapidboi26 (Oct 15, 2010)

imtrying said:


> thanks
> 
> I do tell them, but I normally leave it until the first day just to make them aware in case I'm shoving chocolate down my throat etc. I wouldn't tell anyone before I started - not because I think anything would happen, just preference I suppose



I agree, the Act only covers you for employment and the recruitment process anyway........


----------



## Einstein (Oct 15, 2010)

novorapidboi26 said:


> I have read that article too, basically the DDA is there to prevent discrimination in the work place and so on............so by stating your diabetic to an employer does not mean your disabled, only that you are covering you own a*s in the event there is discrimintion, which unfortunately there can be...
> 
> I would always tell my employer , just means your first in the q for special treatment..........yay........



As of October 1st 2010 the DDA was replaced by the EA 2010... 

My reference to the DDA was merely that diabetics have been covered by the DDA since a series of amendments which encapsulated numerous disabilities previously considered as 'conditions' or any number of other terms. The emotive term of 'disability' is one we can choose to carry or not, and it seems most people are true to their decision and don't swing between a love hate relationship of the term.

There are a number of disabilities which the EA will empower, delivering closure to some of the precedents of set down under the DDA through legal challenges and difficulty in bringing cases that actually arrive at court, rather than being settled out of court with an attached gagging order.


----------



## am64 (Oct 15, 2010)

Einstein said:


> As of October 1st 2010 the DDA was replaced by the EA 2010...
> 
> My reference to the DDA was merely that diabetics have been covered by the DDA since a series of amendments which encapsulated numerous disabilities previously considered as 'conditions' or any number of other terms. The emotive term of 'disability' is one we can choose to carry or not, and it seems most people are true to their decision and don't swing between a love hate relationship of the term.
> 
> There are a number of disabilities which the EA will empower, delivering closure to some of the precedents of set down under the DDA through legal challenges and difficulty in bringing cases that actually arrive at court, rather than being settled out of court with an attached gagging order.



nice to see you back E !!


----------



## Einstein (Oct 15, 2010)

[LEFT said:
			
		

> novorapidboi26[/LEFT];180775]I agree, the Act only covers you for employment and the recruitment process anyway........




Sorry which Act are you referring too? The DDA or The Equality Act 2010?

The EA 2010 covers a very wide scope of service areas, the weakness is that local authorities and public services are at present in limbo with not enforceable​ legislation accurately time-tabled to empower the disabled etc as there is with the EA in the private sector.

Quite why this lump of legislation was missed is beyond me, but is I'm afraid representative of 13 years of legislature that brought in more acts and amendments than in the whole of the previous 150-200 years. And in doing so, nearly every piece needed much argument of precedent through the courts to get it to hang together in a structure that makes any sense.

Anyway, I've retired from all this, so what do I know or care?


----------



## bev (Oct 15, 2010)

Einstein said:


> Sorry which Act are you referring too? The DDA or The Equality Act 2010?
> 
> The EA 2010 covers a very wide scope of service areas, the weakness is that local authorities and public services are at present in limbo with not enforceable​ legislation accurately time-tabled to empower the disabled etc as there is with the EA in the private sector.
> 
> ...



David, you will always care.Bev


----------



## grahams mum (Oct 15, 2010)

bev said:


> Your quite right, but I think lots of prospective employees had assumed that they had to disclose their condition from the start and this obviously would have put them in a less favourable position than others. Now it just gives people the 'permission' not to disclose it and is clearer than before.
> 
> 
> Other changes that might effect parents on here are that within the school area, making 'reasonable adjustments' to encompass looking after a diabetic child can now include any 'auxillary help' required (i.e. school providing a 1;1 for a particular purpose) - and also people who run after school actitivites are also now covered by the EA and have to abide by the rules of making 'reasonable adjustment' to make sure a child is safe.
> ...


hi under theDDA i have already the power to leave work unpaidif you have a disable child and you are responsable until is 18 at least this what my contract says


----------



## Einstein (Oct 17, 2010)

bev said:


> David, you will always care.Bev



Bev,

I was referring more to the missing chunks of legislation! Not, not caring about people.

The real issue here is and will in all honesty probably always be the fact that employers can find an excuse or reason not to employ someone, so long as they don't discuss this or write it down, merely say 'I don't think they will fit in...' is essentially incontestable in court.

The EA 2010 is interesting from a disability perspective, the only problems are: it's less than 10% of the total EA; with the advent of the EQ 2010, perhaps 10% of the population aren't covered in one way or the other by the act; therefore do we have a powerful piece of legislation for some people who really need it and a piece of legislation that gives others disproportionate powers of equality that they perhaps do not need?

Of course we need to be very careful in these areas and this could be a very sharp piece of law if left in the wrong hands to set the wrong precedents of case law.

That is as Politically Correct as I feel like being with a cold on a Sunday morning, so I'll sign off here.

D


----------



## Jennywren (Oct 17, 2010)

I have always told my employers , especially as i work with children , and suffer with hypo unawareness , by being open they ahve been fair and allow me to go aside and check my blood sugars regulary so touch wood so fer allow my blood has dipped i havent got low enough to collapse in front of the children as i think this was be especially upsetting to the children as they and 3-4 years old .Also about 5 years ago my hubby worked for someone and didnt disclose his crohns disease then had some time off and they laid him off because he hadnt disclosed this


----------

