DDA

[Michelle Oates]

Hi

Just wondered are we covered by the DDA (Discrimination Act)

I am in the middle of writing to my last employer as grievance with dL56. Had advice from Acas. Some of you will know from my last post that i got dismissed due to my KC.

Now the Jobcentre are investigating because the employer said it was misconduct and therefore might lose my benefit so have got to write a reply.

I think we are covered but want to check

[GarethB]

Michelle

We are covered by the disability discrimination act.

We and our employers are also entitled to help from access to work so that reasonable adjsutments can be made to keep us in work.

[John Smith]

Michelle,

Further to Gareth's post: we might be covered by the DDA. KC is such an odd condition that you can't automatically be covered by the DDA as soon as you're diagnosed (unlike other conditions such as MS).

The DDA will cover you if you are impacted by your KC on a long-term basis. I think you need to have an occ. health doctor confirm whether you are covered by the DDA personally. I know that I am, and I guess you will be, but you do need to find out.

[Matthew_]

That sounds bad, especially of your benefits are being held up by red-tape!
The only reasonable dismissal on the basis of KC, would be if you were an airline pilot or surgeon or someone who NEEDED good va for their job. Did your previous job have a va standard that you had to pass to get the job? If not, I would think dismissal on that basis COULD be unlawful. It is certainly worth looking into.
Good Luck

[Sweet]

From what I understand KC is covered by the DDA and they just need a consultant to confirm it. I was on long term sick for a long period but I was told when I first went on sick leave that I was covered with this condition. I am also covered with MS so I guess I am kinda lucky, although dam unlucky to be off sick in the first place!

[GarethB]

Sweet,

Your post confirms what occupational health and the works doctor told me in 2004. My wrist problem because it is a work related problem is also covered too.

[Andrew MacLean]

I found that the key that unlocked DDA and Access to Work for me was being registered blind. Once that happened all sorts of things fell into place.

I have since removed myself from the register of blind people, since surgery has restored my sight. My protection under DDA did not, however, stop when my sight returned!

Andrew

[Karl R]

From someone who's been in a similar situation as yourself, you should be covered by the DDA. If you are registered blind this will be automatic, otherwise you will need to meet the criteria of disabled which is:
[quote="DDA"]
* a mental or physical impairment
* this has an adverse effect on your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities
* the adverse effect is substantial
* the adverse effect is long-term (meaning it has lasted for 12 months, or is likely to last for more than 12 months or for the rest of your life).


There are some special provisions, for example:

* If your impairment has substantially affected your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, but doesn't any more, it will still be counted as having that effect if it is likely to do so again
* if you have a progressive condition, and it will substantially affect your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities in the future, you will be regarded as having an impairment which has a substantial adverse effect from the moment the condition has some effect on your ability to carry out normal day to day activities.
* if you have been diagnosed as having cancer, HIV infection or multiple sclerosis you will automatically be considered as ‘disabled’.
* if you are registered as blind or partially sighted or certified as blind or partially sighted by a consultant ophthalmologist, you willl automatically be considered as “disabledâ€

[Susan Mason]

Hi all

I want to second what Karl has posted you 'should' be covered by DDA however as Carl say's and as my solicitor quite clearly told me in the end it comes down to the tribunal. Basically it is a load of old tosh, the law needs re writing as it is too woolly. For example if you are deaf you are covered and if memory serves me correct they test you without any aids. With eyesight, well thats different they test with lenses in or glasses on so if you can see for short periods of time you could be stuffed.

PM me if you need more details, those of you who know me will know I work for a rather large company who had their own ideas, hence the solicitor. Personally they didn't think I was covered and it was only at the 11th hour things took a change for the better, even so it's still not great and I for one feel like I am on borrowed time, with them just waiting for me to have a few bad lens days or slip up with not doing a task on time. I have already been previously advised maybe I am no longer fit to be a manager and at grievance they had the cheek to ask me how much % wise I felt I could commit to completing the various tasks in my role.

A long story!

Don't give up though contact Action for Blind People or the RNIB they are helpful. Disability Rights Commission was too however they made it clear the decision would be down to tribunal.

best wishes

Susan

[rosemary johnson]

GOod advice and "letter of the law" posted on DDA.
Good luck on that front.

A further note: if your ex-employers are trying to claim that they dismissed you for malpractice or similar, they need to prove that, and to be able to prove they followed the proper discinplinary proccedures. That is, that they'd held the appropriate disciplinary meetings, with due notice and advice you were entitled to bring a runion rep or "friend" if you wished, issued appropriate warnings and given you chance to improve/assistance if required (eg. extra training if you'd had a piece of extra duty added to your job that you'd never been properly trained in how to do, and were doing badly because of that).
Many employers who try to gt rid of emplyees for such reasons lose cases against them because they do not have the right records of following the procedures properly than because of the actual merits of whether the emplloyee cwas a good worker or not!
If you ahve a trade union, they - or their officials - should know rather a lot about this.
Rosemary