Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2009 21:40:55 GMT
I have been told by my employer that to qualify as disabled one must have been diagnosed with a qualifying condition for 12 months. this doesn't seem correct. Is this true? regards mediaseller
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2009 21:55:00 GMT
No.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2009 22:00:01 GMT
There is no qualification period. In brief the definition of 'disabled' is 'The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) defines a disabled person as someone who has a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.' A diagnosis of ADHD in the UK is, by this definition, a disibility. www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/RightsAndObligations/DisabilityRights/DG_4001068
|
|
|
Post by roland on Jul 19, 2009 14:34:21 GMT
Hi Tremont, Thanks for bringing this up, because it looks as if mediaseller's employer is misreading that (by overlooking the little word 'or') to mean that he has to have been diagnosed for 12 months before they have to do anything, and that's an inaccurate reading right? Am I right in thinking that since mediaseller has been diagnosed with a life-long condition that then rules out the other two qualifications? btw mediaseller, the DDA 1995 describes 'normal day-to-day activities' as the following: 4 (1) An impairment is to be taken to affect the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal day-to-day activities only if it affects one of the following—
(a) mobility;
(b) manual dexterity;
(c) physical co-ordination;
(d) continence;
(e) ability to lift, carry or otherwise move everyday objects;
(f) speech, hearing or eyesight; (g) memory or ability to concentrate, learn or understand; or (h) perception of the risk of physical danger.
(2) Regulations may prescribe—
(a) circumstances in which an impairment which does not have an effect falling within sub-paragraph (1) is to be taken to affect the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal day-to-day activities;
(b) circumstances in which an impairment which has an effect falling within sub-paragraph (1) is to be taken not to affect the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Note that only one of those abilities needs to be affected. I've only highlighted the one that is most relevant for me. www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/ukpga_19950050_en_10#sch1
|
|
|
Post by roland on Jul 19, 2009 14:56:25 GMT
Hi mediaseller, Here is the bit of the 1995 DDA that applies to employers and employees: (2) It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a disabled person whom he employs—
(a) in the terms of employment which he affords him; (b) in the opportunities which he affords him for promotion, a transfer, training or receiving any other benefit;
(c) by refusing to afford him, or deliberately not affording him, any such opportunity; or (d) by dismissing him, or subjecting him to any other detriment. And here is some more that might be relevant to you: 5 Meaning of “discrimination”
(1) For the purposes of this Part, an employer discriminates against a disabled person if—
(a) for a reason which relates to the disabled person’s disability, he treats him less favourably than he treats or would treat others to whom that reason does not or would not apply; and (b) he cannot show that the treatment in question is justified.
(2) For the purposes of this Part, an employer also discriminates against a disabled person if—
(a) he fails to comply with a section 6 duty imposed on him in relation to the disabled person; and
(b) he cannot show that his failure to comply with that duty is justified. I've underlined 'Section 6 Duty' because that's the bit where employers are legally required to make reasonable adjustments at work. Or at least that's my reading of it (from a non-legal perspective). Tremont will probably be able to provide more clarification. 6 Duty of employer to make adjustments (1) Where—
(a) any arrangements made by or on behalf of an employer, or (b) any physical feature of premises occupied by the employer,
place the disabled person concerned at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled, it is the duty of the employer to take such steps as it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to have to take in order to prevent the arrangements or feature having that effect.
(3) The following are examples of steps which an employer may have to take in relation to a disabled person in order to comply with subsection (1)—
(a) making adjustments to premises;
(b) allocating some of the disabled person’s duties to another person;
(c) transferring him to fill an existing vacancy;
(d) altering his working hours;
(e) assigning him to a different place of work;
(f) allowing him to be absent during working hours for rehabilitation, assessment or treatment; (g) giving him, or arranging for him to be given, training;
(h) acquiring or modifying equipment;
(i) modifying instructions or reference manuals;
(j) modifying procedures for testing or assessment;
(k) providing a reader or interpreter;
(l) providing supervision.
(4) In determining whether it is reasonable for an employer to have to take a particular step in order to comply with subsection (1), regard shall be had, in particular, to— (a) the extent to which taking the step would prevent the effect in question;
(b) the extent to which it is practicable for the employer to take the step;
(c) the financial and other costs which would be incurred by the employer in taking the step and the extent to which taking it would disrupt any of his activities;
(d) the extent of the employer’s financial and other resources;
(e) the availability to the employer of financial or other assistance with respect to taking the step. www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/ukpga_19950050_en_2#pt2-pb1-l1g4
|
|
|
Post by roland on Jul 20, 2009 7:12:43 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2009 14:57:24 GMT
Secondly an employer should never say that an employee is not disabled, if they are unsure they should seek expert advice and treat the person as if they are.....Only a judge can make a definitive ruling in law as to whether a person is disabled.....And I am sure that they do not want to go down that route and lose. ADHD is a life long condition and a person is often born with it and develops it at birth, therefore to say it is not a disability is beyond me.....The diagnosis is irrelevant, often people dont know or think or accept they are disabled, when in fact they are. On the cases which have ruled whether ADHD is a disability, they all agreed that it is, some cases the judge does not even bother to hold a hearing to decide the issue as it is clear it is, even the other side rarely challenge it, and lose if they do lol. I've always wondered this. Does the person have to be diagnosed with ADHD for the act to be enforceable?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2009 15:39:36 GMT
To date the definition of disability has been tested mainly in relation to adult services. A child's ability to memorise, concentrate, learn, speak, move is central to their education. An impairment that has a long-term and substantial effect on a child's ability to do these things may therefore amount to a disability.
Long-term and substantial
The expressions 'long-term' and 'substantial' are somewhat misleading. 'Long-term' is defined in the DDA as 12 months or more. Clearly this rules out conditions such as a broken limb which is likely to mend within that time. 'Substantial' means 'more than minor or trivial' but it may helpfully be thought of as meaning 'having some substance.' The combined effect of these two terms is to include more people in the definition of disability than is commonly.
Disfigurements
Pupils with severe disfigurements are specifically covered by the DDA and do not need to prove that the impairment has a substantial adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
Progressive conditions
Progressive conditions are conditions that are likely to change and develop over time. They include conditions such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy and HIV infection. Changes to the DDA, brought in by the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, specifically bring people with cancer, multiple sclerosis and HIV infection within the definition of disabled people.
Diagnosis
The existence of an impairment or condition does not depend on an official diagnosis. A case supported by the Disability Rights Commission illustrates the issue:
The parents of a boy with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) went to the SEN and Disability Tribunal (SENDIST) alleging discrimination. The Tribunal accepted that the pupil had a clinically well-recognised mental impairment and therefore was likely to be covered by the definition of disability. However SENDIST struck out the claim. They determined that as the diagnosis of ADHD post dated the alleged discrimination the child was not disabled at the time of the alleged discrimination and therefore not protected by the DDA.
The DRC supported an appeal to the High Court where the appeal was conceded by SENDIST; the decision to strike out proceedings was set aside and the claim was referred back for re-consideration by SENDIST.
The fact that the child had not been given an official diagnosis was not relevant to the question of whether the child had a particular impairment. The impairment was considered to amount to a disability because it had a long-term and substantial adverse effect on the child's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, despite the fact that at the point of the discrimination there was no official diagnostic label given. The child's disability was the same before the diagnosis as after.
Equally a diagnosis does not of itself mean that a child is covered by the DDA. The child's impairment has to have a long-term and substantial adverse effect on the child's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, whether or not it has a label.
Disregard of treatments
For the purposes of the definition, all treatments, except the use of spectacles, are ignored. The effect of the impairment has to be considered as it would be without any medication or other treatment. So a young person whose epilepsy is well controlled by drugs has to be considered as though he were not having regular treatment.
The combined effect of the different elements in the definition is to include a very large group of children within the definition of disability.
Extract from the Disability Rights Commission after 1 of our successful cases.
Honey x
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2009 16:56:55 GMT
fantastic reply honeypot!!! ;D
-Matt
|
|
jeff
Member posts quite a bit
Posts: 148
|
Post by jeff on Jul 15, 2011 22:39:51 GMT
I actually think I might try and do this.. Are many people on here classified as disabled?
How do you actually do it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2011 23:40:51 GMT
You don't have to do anything.
You are classified as disabled if you have a long term and substantial impairment (eg ADHD) - you need to be able to prove it but a diagnosis of ADHD (for eg) is enough.
You might not even need the diagnosis.
|
|
jeff
Member posts quite a bit
Posts: 148
|
Post by jeff on Jul 16, 2011 21:58:47 GMT
Hi Planetdave, thanks for the reply. So you don't have to register yourself or anything?
I was thinking of applying for the Freedom Pass and looking into support for students.. I just have to start applying?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2011 23:11:40 GMT
No registration.
There are no lists - if you need a blue badge you ask your GP, if you're disabled it's defined by UKgov and every organisation you bump up against has to make it's own peace with you.
|
|
|
Post by snickerz on Oct 9, 2011 5:34:15 GMT
Neurodiversity Workers with a wide range of conditions grouped under the title of neurodiversity (ND) – such as dyslexia, dyspraxia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) – face a number of barriers in most workplaces. The starting point for representatives is to know that ND people are covered by the disability discrimination provisions of the Equality Act, and that employers have the same duty of reasonable adjustment for ND workers as for any other disabled person.
|
|
|
Post by snickerz on Oct 9, 2011 5:35:37 GMT
|
|