Disability and Adjustments – What is reasonable?
September 25, 2013 5 Comments
Well it has been some time since my last post. I hope you have missed me. I have been very busy since we last met, having set up Lionshead Law which started trading on 2 September. Exciting times! However, I am back and today I will be discussing whether or not an employer must automatically offer a disabled employee an alternative role following a company restructure, even though other affected staff are required to undergo a competitive interview process.
The premise behind this argument is that an employer is under a duty to make reasonable adjustments where a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) puts a disabled employee at a disadvantage when compared to an employee who is not suffering from that disability. In the case of a company reorganisation resulting in the changing of job roles, the PCP would be the requirement for all affected staff to competitively interview for one of the newly created roles. Therefore, the first question to decide is whether the requirement to apply for a new post puts the disabled person at a disadvantage when compared to his colleagues.
If the answer to that question is yes (and it invariably will be), then the next question is whether there is any reasonable adjustment that the employer can make to effectively level the playing field. In the EAT case of Wade v Sheffield Hallam University it was held that the university was not in breach of its duty to make a reasonable adjustment when the Claimant was not automatically offered a new post when her original post was deleted following a reorganisation.
In this case the Claimant’s role disappeared following a restructure at the university. She applied for a new post and was unsuccessful because she did not fulfil two of the essential criteria which the post required. Two years later she applied for the same post and was, again, rejected. She argued that she should not have had to apply for the post competitively as her disability put her at a disadvantage when compared to individuals who did not suffer from her disability and that as such, the university should have made an adjustment to the process enabling her to be automatically selected for the post without having to compete against her non-disabled colleagues.
The question came down to reasonableness. Whilst it may be a reasonable adjustment for a company to appoint a disabled individual to a new post without requiring him to interview for it, what ultimately decided this case in the university’s favour was that the employee concerned did not fulfil all of the essential criteria for the position. It was deemed not reasonable to require the university to appoint someone to a post where only some of the essential criteria had been fulfilled. However, had the employee fulfilled all the essential criteria then it is likely that it would have been a reasonable adjustment on the part of the university to simply appoint her to the post rather than require her to apply for it alongside her colleagues.
Companies in similar situations with disabled employees therefore need to be careful when carrying out restructures/redundancies. Where they are considering requiring affected staff to apply to be considered for new roles/alternative positions, if it is determined that an affected employee who is also disabled fulfils all of the essential criteria for an alternative role, then it may well be an act of unlawful discrimination if that person is not offered the post automatically but instead required to apply for it alongside his colleagues.