Council’s ‘appalling’ treatment of autistic worker

Post Reply New Topic

A MAN suffering from autism has won a landmark judgement against Ealing Council under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

The case was brought against the London Borough of Ealing by disability union UNISON in March 2004 on behalf of Mark Isles, a regeneration officer working for the council.

He had applied for an internal position but had been turned down because he suffered from Asperger's Syndrome (AS), a mild form of autism.

At a settlement ruling on January 9 this year, Watford Employment Tribunal awarded Mr Isles £9,058.37 for "injury to feelings and financial loss", saying officers had failed to properly assess the impact of his disability.

In March 2004, Mr Isles had applied for a business design project officer post.

But he was not shortlisted despite having done an almost identical job satisfactorily only a few months earlier, when he had been asked to stay on in the job.

UNISON challenged this decision but both the original complaint and subsequent grievance were rejected.

The council had accepted that Mr Isles had AS, but had tried to show that it was too mild to be covered by the Disability Discrimination Act, even though they had earlier used AS as a justification for rejecting his application. However, the tribunal accepted that, cumulatively, the effects of Mr Isles' AS were substantial and he was therefore covered by the act.

Steve Barton, an Ealing UNISON branch officer, said: "I am dismayed at the number of cases of poor treatment we have uncovered in recent months. The council claims to be an equal opportunities employer but it is clearly failing to meet its legal obligations. It is small wonder then that the numbers of people with disabilities in the council's employment is so low. Rather than being a beacon of good practice, the council appears to have an appalling record."

The tribunal stated there was no discussion between officers and Mr Isles regarding the effects his disability had upon him in terms of his day-to-day activities and work environment. It concluded that the rejection of Mr Isles' grievance was based on the council's perception of his disability and its potential impact. The tribunal also said there should have been an assessment of Mr Isles in light of his disability, and not what the council perceived to be the effects it had upon him.

Mr Isles welcomed the judgement saying: "I am delighted with the outcome and feel vindicated in bringing this action. I should never have been turned down for this job and hope that the council will choose to sit down and discuss with my UNISON representatives and me how we can learn from this whole experience."

He added: "I hope to be reassured that the council welcomes disabled people in its employment and will in future provide appropriate support and career development opportunities."

The council's executive director Shelley Adams said: "The council has taken on board the more limited criticism made by the tribunal that it should have spoken to Mr Isles about his disability before dealing with his grievance, and the council will take steps to ensure that such matters are appropriately handled in the future.

"As with any serious grievances there are always lessons to be learned and we are actively looking at these."

She added: Ealing Council is an equal opportunities employer and is fully committed to working with, and employing disabled people."

http://www.ealingtimes.co.uk/news/local ... k_case.php

"The council had accepted that Mr Isles had AS, but had tried to show that it was too mild to be covered by the Disability Discrimination Act, even though they had earlier used AS as a justification for rejecting his application."

Well, they caught themselves on a Catch-22. If it was a significant disability, they were legally bound to assess whether the job was still a possibility, making "reasonable accommodation" if necessary, and if it was not a significant disability, they had no grounds for citing it.

"the tribunal accepted that, cumulatively, the effects of Mr Isles' AS were substantial and he was therefore covered by the act."

Now, is that taken as a precedent for any official diagnosis of AS, which would include me, or only those who are held, in individual cases, to be "substantially affected"?

(Trinny and Suzannah would undoubtedly consider me substantially affected, if not beyond all hope)

Personally the situation leaves me with mixed feelings.
I've held professional level jobs for twenty-six years.
Do I now have grounds to, or even have to, play the disability card?
I could be changing jobs in the next year or so, so it's not just an academic thought.