What are the legal and practical implications of answering the "Do you consider yourself disabled" question on a job application form?

I have been off work for three years to due to mental health problems (severe depression, suicidal thoughts) and I have been on benefits (UC + LCWRA) ever since.

I need to get back to work not really because I want to but because I'll have to go through some significant expenses that my benefits can't match.

Granted that no employer would want to touch somebody like me with such a long gap, I think I could do any entry level work (e.g. customer service), only that, in my circumstances, I can't really stand repeated abuse, which unfortunately is the norm in such jobs (think of how toxic customer service has become in the last few years compared to 20 years ago when I was in full employment).

What are the legal and practical implications of answering "Yes" to the "Do you consider yourself disabled" question on a job application form?

Is it just a statistical question that has no practical relevance?

Or can I ask that my position be protected from excessive stress? Is this an unrealistic demand?

For example (and admitting an employer is masochistic enough to give me a chance), I am told at the job interview that the position is suitable for people like me, and then it turns out that this is not true, how does my disabled status affect this situation?

Thanks.

SF

The Todal

2024-08-31 10:08:27 UTC

Post by s***@englandmail.com
I have been off work for three years to due to mental health problems (severe depression, suicidal thoughts) and I have been on benefits (UC + LCWRA) ever since.

Sorry to hear that. It's a painful way to live. I hope you found help
from the NHS, from talking therapy or from one of the charities that
offer listening support. For instance Samaritans, or in London there is
The Listening Place.

Well done for deciding to help yourself by getting back to work, even
though it might be stressful to do so.

Post by s***@englandmail.com
I need to get back to work not really because I want to but because I'll have to go through some significant expenses that my benefits can't match.
Granted that no employer would want to touch somebody like me with such a long gap, I think I could do any entry level work (e.g. customer service), only that, in my circumstances, I can't really stand repeated abuse, which unfortunately is the norm in such jobs (think of how toxic customer service has become in the last few years compared to 20 years ago when I was in full employment).

I don't think anyone should put up with abuse or bullying either from
management, from colleagues or from customers. No properly run
organisation would tolerate such a culture.

Post by s***@englandmail.com
What are the legal and practical implications of answering "Yes" to the "Do you consider yourself disabled" question on a job application form?

It is no longer a stigma for the vast majority of employers. It may
actually help them reach a quota or target for employing disabled people.

Post by s***@englandmail.com
Is it just a statistical question that has no practical relevance?
Or can I ask that my position be protected from excessive stress? Is this an unrealistic demand?

I think you should try a different approach. Instead of presenting
yourself as a very vulnerable person, explain that you would like to
know whether the employer has an anti-bullying or dignity at work policy
and ask if you can see it.

Post by s***@englandmail.com
For example (and admitting an employer is masochistic enough to give me a chance), I am told at the job interview that the position is suitable for people like me, and then it turns out that this is not true, how does my disabled status affect this situation?

Although you normally have to work for 2 years in order to acquire the
right not to be unfairly dismissed, there are exceptions to that rule.
You can claim if you have been there less than 2 years if your reasons
are, for instance, asserting your statutory rights or whistleblowing or
raising a health and safety concern.

The Todal

2024-08-31 10:12:22 UTC

Post by s***@englandmail.com
I have been off work for three years to due to mental health problems
(severe depression, suicidal thoughts) and I have been on benefits (UC
+ LCWRA) ever since.

Sorry to hear that. It's a painful way to live. I hope you found help
from the NHS, from talking therapy or from one of the charities that
offer listening support. For instance Samaritans, or in London there is
The Listening Place.
Well done for deciding to help yourself by getting back to work, even
though it might be stressful to do so.

Post by s***@englandmail.com
I need to get back to work not really because I want to but because
I'll have to go through some significant expenses that my benefits
can't match.
Granted that no employer would want to touch somebody like me with
such a long gap, I think I could do any entry level work (e.g.
customer service), only that, in my circumstances, I can't really
stand repeated abuse, which unfortunately is the norm in such jobs
(think of how toxic customer service has become in the last few years
compared to 20 years ago when I was in full employment).

I don't think anyone should put up with abuse or bullying either from
management, from colleagues or from customers. No properly run
organisation would tolerate such a culture.

Post by s***@englandmail.com
What are the legal and practical implications of answering "Yes" to
the "Do you consider yourself disabled" question on a job application
form?

It is no longer a stigma for the vast majority of employers. It may
actually help them reach a quota or target for employing disabled people.

Post by s***@englandmail.com
Is it just a statistical question that has no practical relevance?
Or can I ask that my position be protected from excessive stress? Is
this an unrealistic demand?

Post by s***@englandmail.com
For example (and admitting an employer is masochistic enough to give
me a chance), I am told at the job interview that the position is
suitable for people like me, and then it turns out that this is not
true, how does my disabled status affect this situation?

I should also add, the employer would be expected to make reasonable
adjustments for your disability but that's much easier to assess if you
have a sight or hearing or mobility problem. I doubt if it would be
possible to show that reproaching you for underperformance when you are
sensitive to criticism would amount to an infringement of your rights as
a disabled person but I could be wrong.

JNugent

2024-08-31 11:39:51 UTC

The answer to that HAS to depend upon whether you do, in fact, consider
yourself disabled.

Do you?

Post by s***@englandmail.com
Is it just a statistical question that has no practical relevance?

It might have something to do with the obligations of employers with
more than a certain number of employees to have a proportion of disabled
people among them. I can't give you chapter and verse on the numbers or
the legislation.

Post by s***@englandmail.com
Or can I ask that my position be protected from excessive stress? Is this an unrealistic demand?
For example (and admitting an employer is masochistic enough to give me a chance), I am told at the job interview that the position is suitable for people like me, and then it turns out that this is not true, how does my disabled status affect this situation?

Pass.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

Roger Hayter

2024-08-31 12:11:34 UTC

The answer to that HAS to depend upon whether you do, in fact, consider
yourself disabled.
Do you?

Personally I don't really know exactly what "being disabled" means. Does
anyone?

--
Roger Hayter

Jon Ribbens

2024-08-31 13:34:42 UTC

The answer to that HAS to depend upon whether you do, in fact, consider
yourself disabled.
Do you?

Personally I don't really know exactly what "being disabled" means. Does
anyone?

That's why they ask "do you consider yourself disabled" rather than
"are you disabled"!

Spike

2024-08-31 16:01:36 UTC

The answer to that HAS to depend upon whether you do, in fact, consider
yourself disabled.
Do you?

Personally I don't really know exactly what "being disabled" means. Does
anyone?

There is a definition on the gov.uk web site.

--
Spike

Pamela

2024-08-31 15:57:34 UTC

The answer to that HAS to depend upon whether you do, in fact,
consider yourself disabled.
Do you?

Personally I don't really know exactly what "being disabled" means.
Does anyone?

The Equality Act sees it like this:

You're disabled under the Equality Act 2010 if you have a physical or
mental impairment that has a 'substantial' and 'long-term' negative
effect on your ability to do normal daily activities.

https://www.gov.uk/definition-of-disability-under-equality-act-2010

However this definition by the Equality Act may well not apply in other
cicrumstances.

Mark Goodge

2024-08-31 17:43:39 UTC

Post by Pamela

Post by JNugent
The answer to that HAS to depend upon whether you do, in fact,
consider yourself disabled.
Do you?

Personally I don't really know exactly what "being disabled" means.
Does anyone?

You're disabled under the Equality Act 2010 if you have a physical or
mental impairment that has a 'substantial' and 'long-term' negative
effect on your ability to do normal daily activities.
https://www.gov.uk/definition-of-disability-under-equality-act-2010

That definition does, though, shift the question to a definition of "normal
daily activities". Because what's normal for one person may well not be
normal for another. And, of course, "substantial" is a bit woolly too.

FWIW, I don't particularly like the question as cited by the OP, because I
think it's dangerously close to treating disability as a matter of identity.
Asking "do you consider yourself to be disabled?" is a bit like asking "how
old do you feel?". People's self-perception, in both cases, will differ, but
as far as the law is concerned it's intended to be something which is
cabable of being reasonably objectively assessed. I think a better wording
is to ask "are you disabled?", but illustrate that by reference to the legal
definition and, if helpful, examples. That does still allow for subjectivity
in the definitions of "substantial" and "normal", but does make it an
assessment of fact rather than identity.

Mark

The Todal

2024-08-31 19:00:45 UTC

Post by Pamela

Post by JNugent
The answer to that HAS to depend upon whether you do, in fact,
consider yourself disabled.
Do you?

Personally I don't really know exactly what "being disabled" means.
Does anyone?

That definition does, though, shift the question to a definition of "normal
daily activities". Because what's normal for one person may well not be
normal for another. And, of course, "substantial" is a bit woolly too.
FWIW, I don't particularly like the question as cited by the OP, because I
think it's dangerously close to treating disability as a matter of identity.
Asking "do you consider yourself to be disabled?" is a bit like asking "how
old do you feel?". People's self-perception, in both cases, will differ, but
as far as the law is concerned it's intended to be something which is
cabable of being reasonably objectively assessed. I think a better wording
is to ask "are you disabled?", but illustrate that by reference to the legal
definition and, if helpful, examples. That does still allow for subjectivity
in the definitions of "substantial" and "normal", but does make it an
assessment of fact rather than identity.

Actually in my experience employers and those who run charities and seek
EDI data from their volunteers, do ask whether you consider yourself to
be disabled rather than are you disabled.

I agree it's a nebulous thing to define. I get regular episodes of
backache but that wouldn't stop me struggling into work. I don't think I
have ever said I was disabled. I've known people say they are disabled
if they have severe anxiety and depression, and that seems fair enough
and shouldn't require a doctor to put the "disabled" label on the person.

I don't think a "yes" would ever be a lawful reason for refusing someone
a job or a promotion.

Mark Goodge

2024-08-31 20:03:43 UTC

Post by Mark Goodge
FWIW, I don't particularly like the question as cited by the OP, because I
think it's dangerously close to treating disability as a matter of identity.
Asking "do you consider yourself to be disabled?" is a bit like asking "how
old do you feel?". People's self-perception, in both cases, will differ, but
as far as the law is concerned it's intended to be something which is
cabable of being reasonably objectively assessed. I think a better wording
is to ask "are you disabled?", but illustrate that by reference to the legal
definition and, if helpful, examples. That does still allow for subjectivity
in the definitions of "substantial" and "normal", but does make it an
assessment of fact rather than identity.

Actually in my experience employers and those who run charities and seek
EDI data from their volunteers, do ask whether you consider yourself to
be disabled rather than are you disabled.

I know. But I'm really not sure it's better. I think it's something which,
on the face of it, may appear to be a kinder, more person-centred way of
asking the question. But I think it puts a certain amount of pressure on the
applicant to answer in the "right" way, particularly for people who fall
into the category of legally-disabled-but-fine-most-of-the-time, who may
feel that answering "yes" is misleading as it implies, wrongly, that some
special treatment will be needed, while "no" is equally misleading as it is
legally incorrect.

There are, after all, only two valid reasons why a person's disability is
any concern of an employer. The first is to cover off the relatively few
situations where a disability may conflict with a genuine occupational
requirement and thus be lawful grounds for declining to employ them (for
example, someone who has no use of their legs wouldn't be suitable for a
driving job). And the second is where it doesn't affect their ability to do
the job itself, but may require reasonable adjustments in order to
facilitate their work (for example, ensuring that a wheelchair user in an
office job has an accessible workstation and access to suitable break
facilities such as toilets). Anything else is really no concern of the
employer; it's part of the employee or applicant's private life and they are
under no obligation whatsoever to disclose it.

So a much better question on a job application form is "Do you have any
disabilities that might affect your ability to do the job, or would require
any adjustments on our part in order to enable you to do the job?" followed
by "If yes, please provide details". That can honestly be answered "no" if
the applicant does have a disability but not one which will impinge on their
work, and it explains the reasons why the question is being asked so that if
the answer is "yes" then the applicant can in turn explain the effect it has
on them.

Post by The Todal
I agree it's a nebulous thing to define. I get regular episodes of
backache but that wouldn't stop me struggling into work. I don't think I
have ever said I was disabled.

Back pain is a disability if it prevents you doing ordinary, everyday things
(not just work). If it made it significantly harder for you to go shopping,
or mow the lawn, for example, that would fall within the legal definition.
But, of course, it may well not prevent you doing your job, so it may not be
relevant there. Although it might be a valid reason to ask your boss if you
can have a new office chair, because the one you're sitting on is making
your back worse. That would be a perfectly reasonable adjustment.

Post by The Todal
I've known people say they are disabled
if they have severe anxiety and depression, and that seems fair enough
and shouldn't require a doctor to put the "disabled" label on the person.

Anxiety and depression are disabilities if they prevent the sufferer from
doing ordinary, everyday things. There's no general requirement for a doctor
to certify someone's disability.

Post by The Todal
I don't think a "yes" would ever be a lawful reason for refusing someone
a job or a promotion.

It would be lawful if the disability creates a direct conflict with a
genuine occupational requirement which cannot be mitigated by means of
reasonable adjustments. For example, as above, someone who has no use of
their legs would be unsuitable for a job which routinely involves driving
company vehicles. Even if they are able to drive their own, specially
adapted, car, and have a full licence, it would not be reasonable to adapt
every company vehicle for them to be able to use it. So it would be a lawful
reason to refuse them a job under those circumstances.

Mark

The Todal

2024-09-01 11:56:55 UTC

Post by The Todal
I don't think a "yes" would ever be a lawful reason for refusing someone
a job or a promotion.

I disagree but maybe we're at cross purposes. I don't think a "yes"
would be a lawful reason for refusing someone a job or a promotion, if
the only basis was a reply on a questionnaire to "do you consider
yourself to be disabled".

To refuse someone a job or a promotion the employer would have to
explore the nature of the disability and consider whether it's the sort
of job where reasonable adjustments would make it possible to do that job.

If there were two equally well qualified candidates and the employer
decided to rule one of them out simply because of the answer on the
questionnaire, he would face a tribunal claim for disability
discrimination, if the candidate was able to obtain proof of how the
decision was made. From the employer's point of view it can seem rather
unfair. He might have other valid reasons for rejecting a candidate but
a tribunal might decide that it was the disability that made the
difference.

2024-09-01 15:22:53 UTC

Post by The Todal
To refuse someone a job or a promotion the employer would have to
explore the nature of the disability and consider whether it's the sort
of job where reasonable adjustments would make it possible to do that job.

Is the problem, really, that the question is wrong? The right question
is something like:

"Are there aspects of the job you have applied for that would require
adjustments because of a disability you have?"

That is specific and goes right to the heart of the discussion that
needs to take place.

A more wide-ranging question about disability seems unnecessarily
intrusive, unless it is feared that the potential recruit would not be
able to assess the above. As has been remarked previously, erectile
dysfunction is a disability, but there are not many jobs that would be a
problem for.

The Todal

2024-09-01 16:12:29 UTC

Post by The Todal
To refuse someone a job or a promotion the employer would have to
explore the nature of the disability and consider whether it's the
sort of job where reasonable adjustments would make it possible to do
that job.

Is the problem, really, that the question is wrong? The right question
"Are there aspects of the job you have applied for that would require
adjustments because of a disability you have?"

I think employers and charities who have many volunteers are expected to
gather EDI statistics across the board, including from existing staff,
and "do you consider yourself to have a disability" or similar wording
is now standard so that they can satisfy whichever body expects to see
such statistics. For law firms, see
https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/resources/equality-diversity/your-data/

When the survey is entirely voluntary, one can choose to ignore
questions that seem intrusive. Including those about whether you
identify as male, female, intersex, nonbinary or genderqueer. And what
your preferred pronoun is. I wonder if anyone gives frivolous answers
and is reprimanded for doing so?

I haven't applied for a job or interviewed anyone for a job for many
years now, and I suspect that it wouldn't be usual to ask about
protected characteristics (including disability) in a job application
form but others might correct me if I'm wrong.

Post by GB
That is specific and goes right to the heart of the discussion that
needs to take place.
A more wide-ranging question about disability seems unnecessarily
intrusive, unless it is feared that the potential recruit would not be
able to assess the above. As has been remarked previously, erectile
dysfunction is a disability, but there are not many jobs that would be a
problem for.

Max Demian

2024-09-01 17:01:58 UTC

Post by The Todal
To refuse someone a job or a promotion the employer would have to
explore the nature of the disability and consider whether it's the
sort of job where reasonable adjustments would make it possible to do
that job.

Is the problem, really, that the question is wrong? The right question
"Are there aspects of the job you have applied for that would require
adjustments because of a disability you have?"

I think employers and charities who have many volunteers are expected to
gather EDI statistics across the board, including from existing staff,
and "do you consider yourself to have a disability" or similar wording
is now standard so that they can satisfy whichever body expects to see
such statistics. For law firms, see
https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/resources/equality-diversity/your-data/
When the survey is entirely voluntary, one can choose to ignore
questions that seem intrusive. Including those about whether you
identify as male, female, intersex, nonbinary or genderqueer. And what
your preferred pronoun is. I wonder if anyone gives frivolous answers
and is reprimanded for doing so?

If there isn't a "prefer not to answer" option, without reprisals,
that's political; akin to asking you who you voted for in the GE.
(Having to answer it entails acceptance of certain notions of "gender".)

Similarly asking you what you consider your ethnicity to be. (You might
regard yourself as racially "colour blind".)

Amazing all the ramifications of a simple question.

Does this "disability" make it impossible to do the job (e.g. epilepsy
or poor eyesight for driving)?

There are some jobs requiring tri-colour vision, but colour blindness
wouldn't normally be considered a disability.

Nor is being a woman, which has several employment disadvantages, but
women have long had well organised campaigning groups, so even to
mention the potential disadvantages is verboten.

What is a "reasonable adjustment"?

If blind or epileptic people were as well organised, they could demand
chauffeurs for jobs that require the ability to drive - but perhaps not
where it is literally a driving job.

--
Max Demian

Mark Goodge

2024-09-02 16:25:41 UTC

Post by The Todal
To refuse someone a job or a promotion the employer would have to
explore the nature of the disability and consider whether it's the
sort of job where reasonable adjustments would make it possible to do
that job.

Is the problem, really, that the question is wrong? The right question
"Are there aspects of the job you have applied for that would require
adjustments because of a disability you have?"

FWIW, if I was asked that question by an employer or a voluntary
organisation, I would interpret it as meaning a disability which either
affects my ability to do the job or which requires some adjustments in order
to accommodate me. I'm not going to answer "yes" to an irrelevant question
merely so that the organisation can score another point on its EDI data.

Mark

Mark Goodge

2024-09-02 16:20:06 UTC

Is the problem, really, that the question is wrong? The right question
"Are there aspects of the job you have applied for that would require
adjustments because of a disability you have?"
That is specific and goes right to the heart of the discussion that
needs to take place.

Yes, I agree. That would make much more sense. Although that does require
the applicant to know enough about the job to be able to assess that, which
may not be the case. For example, they may not know, until they turn up for
the interview, that the office is on the first floor of a building with no
lift. So it might be more useful to ask a broader question about the nature
of the disability, so that the employer can also assess whether any
adjustments will be necessary.

Post by GB
A more wide-ranging question about disability seems unnecessarily
intrusive, unless it is feared that the potential recruit would not be
able to assess the above. As has been remarked previously, erectile
dysfunction is a disability, but there are not many jobs that would be a
problem for.

It's also something that many people may be uncomfortable revealing to an
employer. So a question which implies that they need to reveal it may be
potentially offensive.

Mark

Mark Goodge

2024-09-02 16:15:19 UTC

Post by The Todal
I don't think a "yes" would ever be a lawful reason for refusing someone
a job or a promotion.

Yes, I agree. But that's kind of my point. "Do you consider yourself to be
disabled?" is a meaningless question, on its own. It only becomes meaningful
when accompanied by a description of the nature and effect of the
disability, so that the employer can assess whether it creates a genuine
barrier to employment or, if not, what adjustments it might be necessary for
the employer to make.

Yes, and that's why the application form has to ask for that information. If
it doesn't, it's just a box-ticking exercise.

Post by The Todal
If there were two equally well qualified candidates and the employer
decided to rule one of them out simply because of the answer on the
questionnaire, he would face a tribunal claim for disability
discrimination, if the candidate was able to obtain proof of how the
decision was made. From the employer's point of view it can seem rather
unfair. He might have other valid reasons for rejecting a candidate but
a tribunal might decide that it was the disability that made the
difference.

The reality, though, is that not everybody is sufficiently motivated to take
an employer to a tribunal. And even if they did, the employer may well find
it relatively easy to come up with some other reason why a different
candidate was preferred.

Mark

kat

2024-09-01 10:28:45 UTC

Post by JNugent
The answer to that HAS to depend upon whether you do, in fact,
consider yourself disabled.
Do you?

Personally I don't really know exactly what "being disabled" means.
Does anyone?

   You're disabled under the Equality Act 2010 if you have a physical or
   mental impairment that has a 'substantial' and 'long-term' negative
   effect on your ability to do normal daily activities.
   https://www.gov.uk/definition-of-disability-under-equality-act-2010

That definition does, though, shift the question to a definition of "normal
daily activities". Because what's normal for one person may well not be
normal for another. And, of course, "substantial" is a bit woolly too.
FWIW, I don't particularly like the question as cited by the OP, because I
think it's dangerously close to treating disability as a matter of identity.
Asking "do you consider yourself to be disabled?" is a bit like asking "how
old do you feel?". People's self-perception, in both cases, will differ, but
as far as the law is concerned it's intended to be something which is
cabable of being reasonably objectively assessed. I think a better wording
is to ask "are you disabled?", but illustrate that by reference to the legal
definition and, if helpful, examples. That does still allow for subjectivity
in the definitions of "substantial" and "normal", but does make it an
assessment of fact rather than identity.

Actually in my experience employers and those who run charities and seek EDI
data from their volunteers, do ask whether you consider yourself to be disabled
rather than are you disabled.
I agree it's a nebulous thing to define. I get regular episodes of backache but
that wouldn't stop me struggling into work. I don't think I have ever said I was
disabled. I've known people say they are disabled if they have severe anxiety
and depression, and that seems fair enough and shouldn't require a doctor to put
the "disabled" label on the person.
I don't think a "yes" would ever be a lawful reason for refusing someone a job
or a promotion.

Depends, surely, on the job requirements. Your back presumably isn't a problem
for your work, mine was getting so for mine pre-Covid. Worse now, retired.

A more interesting point is that I read that there are no Deaf people taking
part in the paraolympics ( unless they qualify under another disability). Indeed
they have their own competition. They dont consider themselves disabled, just a
different group of people.

I am deaf - very deaf, but not from when I was young, it came on later in life -
and other than the bluetooth connection between my mobile phone and hearing aids
I struggle with a telephone, even on speaker. Any job that needed me to be able
to take phone calls on other phones wouldn't be a good fit, so for that I would
say, yes, I am disabled. But if I could sit and email all day - not disabled.

--
kat

^..^<

Pamela

2024-09-01 11:47:11 UTC

On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 16:57:34 +0100, Pamela

Post by Pamela

Post by JNugent
The answer to that HAS to depend upon whether you do, in fact,
consider yourself disabled.
Do you?

Personally I don't really know exactly what "being disabled" means.
Does anyone?

You're disabled under the Equality Act 2010 if you have a physical
or mental impairment that has a 'substantial' and 'long-term'
negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities.
https://www.gov.uk/definition-of-disability-under-equality-act-2010

That definition does, though, shift the question to a definition of
"normal daily activities". Because what's normal for one person may
well not be normal for another. And, of course, "substantial" is a bit
woolly too.
FWIW, I don't particularly like the question as cited by the OP,
because I think it's dangerously close to treating disability as a
matter of identity. Asking "do you consider yourself to be disabled?"
is a bit like asking "how old do you feel?". People's self-perception,
in both cases, will differ, but as far as the law is concerned it's
intended to be something which is cabable of being reasonably
objectively assessed. I think a better wording is to ask "are you
disabled?", but illustrate that by reference to the legal definition
and, if helpful, examples. That does still allow for subjectivity in
the definitions of "substantial" and "normal", but does make it an
assessment of fact rather than identity.
Mark

Putting aside malingerers, assessment of one's own non-physical
disability is subject to prevailing standards. The younger generations
have a tendency to sincerely interpret almost negative emotion as a form
of mental illness and hence as a form of mental disability.

That is not to belittle those with profound affective psychological
disorders, which can indeed be extremely disabling.

This subjectivity in self-assessment probably underlies the ever-growing
proportion of disabled people, which is now officially 24% of the
population according to the DWP's "Family Resources Survey".

See the report here:
<https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9602/>

Providing support to this working age population (and also to 18& of all
children with "special needs" disabilities) is going to be demanding and
I expect the government will be taking some very unpopular actions to
restrict access.

See the report here:
<https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07020/>

JNugent

2024-08-31 17:09:14 UTC

The answer to that HAS to depend upon whether you do, in fact, consider
yourself disabled.
Do you?

Personally I don't really know exactly what "being disabled" means. Does
anyone?

A matter of self-identification, surely?

At my age, in answer to any pro-forma question that asks whether my day
to day activities are restricted by any informity (however defined), I
always answer in the affirmative (and that is the truth). Fifty years
ago, I would not have dreamed of doing that.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

2024-09-01 09:31:42 UTC

The answer to that HAS to depend upon whether you do, in fact, consider
yourself disabled.
Do you?

Personally I don't really know exactly what "being disabled" means. Does
anyone?

Under the Equality act 2010, anyone who has a conditino that affects
their day to day life for 6 months or more is legally classed as "disabled"

This also includes mental health conditions, neurodiversity and even
food intolerances/allergies.

Anyone diagnosed with HIV or cancer gets automatic protection from day 1.

Max Demian

2024-09-01 11:07:33 UTC

Post by Roger Hayter
Personally I don't really know exactly what "being disabled" means. Does
anyone?

Under the Equality act 2010, anyone who has a conditino that affects
their day to day life for 6 months or more is legally classed as "disabled"
This also includes mental health conditions, neurodiversity and even
food intolerances/allergies.

What about erectile dysfunction?

--
Max Demian

2024-09-01 11:57:25 UTC

Post by Roger Hayter
Personally I don't really know exactly what "being disabled" means. Does
anyone?

Under the Equality act 2010, anyone who has a conditino that affects
their day to day life for 6 months or more is legally classed as "disabled"
This also includes mental health conditions, neurodiversity and even
food intolerances/allergies.

What about erectile dysfunction?

yes, I should think for certain particular trades, its an essential tool
of the trade! :-)

and even hay fever, asthma and eczema cound as disabilities

The Todal

2024-09-01 12:05:18 UTC

Post by Roger Hayter
Personally I don't really know exactly what "being disabled" means. Does
anyone?

Under the Equality act 2010, anyone who has a conditino that affects
their day to day life for 6 months or more is legally classed as "disabled"
This also includes mental health conditions, neurodiversity and even
food intolerances/allergies.

What about erectile dysfunction?

Good question.

This is a site that discusses the scope of the definition of disability.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-guidance/disability-equality-act-2010-guidance-on-matters-to-be-taken-into-account-in-determining-questions-relating-to-the-definition-of-disability-html

quote

The Act provides for certain people to be deemed to meet the definition
of disability without having to show that they have an impairment that
has (or is likely to have) a substantial and long-term adverse effect on
the ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

unquote

Maybe if you don't have sexual intercourse with someone every day, your
erectile dysfunction won't qualify.

And it has to be "substantial" ie:

quote

The requirement that an adverse effect on normal day-to- day activities
should be a substantial one reflects the general understanding of
disability as a limitation going beyond the normal differences in
ability which may exist among people. A substantial effect is one that
is more than a minor or trivial effect.

unquote

Maybe erectile dysfunction, like myopia, is part of the normal
differences in ability which may exist among people.

Max Demian

2024-09-01 16:37:10 UTC

Post by Roger Hayter
Personally I don't really know exactly what "being disabled" means. Does
anyone?

Under the Equality act 2010, anyone who has a conditino that affects
their day to day life for 6 months or more is legally classed as "disabled"
This also includes mental health conditions, neurodiversity and even
food intolerances/allergies.

What about erectile dysfunction?

Good question.
This is a site that discusses the scope of the definition of disability.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-guidance/disability-equality-act-2010-guidance-on-matters-to-be-taken-into-account-in-determining-questions-relating-to-the-definition-of-disability-html
quote
The Act provides for certain people to be deemed to meet the definition
of disability without having to show that they have an impairment that
has (or is likely to have) a substantial and long-term adverse effect on
the ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
unquote
Maybe if you don't have sexual intercourse with someone every day, your
erectile dysfunction won't qualify.
quote
The requirement that an adverse effect on normal day-to- day activities
should be a substantial one reflects the general understanding of
disability as a limitation going beyond the normal differences in
ability which may exist among people. A substantial effect is one that
is more than a minor or trivial effect.
unquote
Maybe erectile dysfunction, like myopia, is part of the normal
differences in ability which may exist among people.

Surely sexual intercourse is a "normal day-to-day activity"?

--
Max Demian

The Todal

2024-09-01 17:35:03 UTC

Post by Roger Hayter
Personally I don't really know exactly what "being disabled" means. Does
anyone?

Under the Equality act 2010, anyone who has a conditino that affects
their day to day life for 6 months or more is legally classed as "disabled"
This also includes mental health conditions, neurodiversity and even
food intolerances/allergies.

What about erectile dysfunction?

Good question.
This is a site that discusses the scope of the definition of disability.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-guidance/disability-equality-act-2010-guidance-on-matters-to-be-taken-into-account-in-determining-questions-relating-to-the-definition-of-disability-html
quote
The Act provides for certain people to be deemed to meet the
definition of disability without having to show that they have an
impairment that has (or is likely to have) a substantial and long-term
adverse effect on the ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
unquote
Maybe if you don't have sexual intercourse with someone every day,
your erectile dysfunction won't qualify.
quote
The requirement that an adverse effect on normal day-to- day
activities should be a substantial one reflects the general
understanding of disability as a limitation going beyond the normal
differences in ability which may exist among people. A substantial
effect is one that is more than a minor or trivial effect.
unquote
Maybe erectile dysfunction, like myopia, is part of the normal
differences in ability which may exist among people.

Surely sexual intercourse is a "normal day-to-day activity"?

Well, let's take it one distasteful step further. Pleasuring yourself is
a normal day-to-day activity. Being anorgasmic is probably a serious
disability, which could cause suicidal ideation. But it would probably
not affect someone's ability to work for a living.

2024-09-01 18:26:51 UTC

Post by Roger Hayter
Personally I don't really know exactly what "being disabled" means. Does
anyone?

Under the Equality act 2010, anyone who has a conditino that
affects their day to day life for 6 months or more is legally
classed as "disabled"
This also includes mental health conditions, neurodiversity and
even food intolerances/allergies.

What about erectile dysfunction?

Good question.
This is a site that discusses the scope of the definition of disability.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-guidance/disability-equality-act-2010-guidance-on-matters-to-be-taken-into-account-in-determining-questions-relating-to-the-definition-of-disability-html
quote
The Act provides for certain people to be deemed to meet the
definition of disability without having to show that they have an
impairment that has (or is likely to have) a substantial and
long-term adverse effect on the ability to carry out normal
day-to-day activities.
unquote
Maybe if you don't have sexual intercourse with someone every day,
your erectile dysfunction won't qualify.
quote
The requirement that an adverse effect on normal day-to- day
activities should be a substantial one reflects the general
understanding of disability as a limitation going beyond the normal
differences in ability which may exist among people. A substantial
effect is one that is more than a minor or trivial effect.
unquote
Maybe erectile dysfunction, like myopia, is part of the normal
differences in ability which may exist among people.

Surely sexual intercourse is a "normal day-to-day activity"?

yes it would if you were gainfully employed as a Gigolo or a Rent boy :-)

Max Demian

2024-09-02 10:36:13 UTC

Post by The Todal
The Act provides for certain people to be deemed to meet the
definition of disability without having to show that they have an
impairment that has (or is likely to have) a substantial and
long-term adverse effect on the ability to carry out normal
day-to-day activities.
unquote
Maybe if you don't have sexual intercourse with someone every day,
your erectile dysfunction won't qualify.
quote
The requirement that an adverse effect on normal day-to- day
activities should be a substantial one reflects the general
understanding of disability as a limitation going beyond the normal
differences in ability which may exist among people. A substantial
effect is one that is more than a minor or trivial effect.
unquote
Maybe erectile dysfunction, like myopia, is part of the normal
differences in ability which may exist among people.

Surely sexual intercourse is a "normal day-to-day activity"?

The original question on the job application should say, "Do you
consider that you have a disability that could affect your ability to do
this job?"

Even then, the applicant won't know how this will affect his chances.

Is the employer keen to employ disabled people and will make any
"necessary adjustments"?

Does he have a quota of disabled people he has to fill (legal or "from
head office")?

Will the answer be just another reason to reject the applicant, once he
has rejected CVs with spelling mistakes or ones in comic sans?

--
Max Demian

Jon Ribbens

2024-09-02 10:48:00 UTC

Post by Max Demian
The original question on the job application should say, "Do you
consider that you have a disability that could affect your ability to do
this job?"
Even then, the applicant won't know how this will affect his chances.
Is the employer keen to employ disabled people and will make any
"necessary adjustments"?
Does he have a quota of disabled people he has to fill (legal or "from
head office")?
Will the answer be just another reason to reject the applicant, once he
has rejected CVs with spelling mistakes or ones in comic sans?

If the employer is asking about disabilities in the main part of the
application that is seen by the person making the hiring decisions (as
opposed to a separate section which is seen only by HR, for statistical
purposes), then one can only assume the employer likes losing lawsuits.

2024-09-02 11:34:45 UTC

Post by Max Demian
Will the answer be just another reason to reject the applicant, once he
has rejected CVs with spelling mistakes or ones in comic sans?

I was told that a recruiter had far too many applications, so he threw
90% in the bin unread. When challenged about whether this was fair to
the applicants, he said that he liked to recruit lucky people.

JNugent

2024-09-01 20:04:22 UTC

Post by Roger Hayter
Personally I don't really know exactly what "being disabled" means. Does
anyone?

Under the Equality act 2010, anyone who has a conditino that affects
their day to day life for 6 months or more is legally classed as "disabled"
This also includes mental health conditions, neurodiversity and even
food intolerances/allergies.

What about erectile dysfunction?

What job are you thinking of applying for?

Are there many vacancies?

BrritSki

2024-09-02 07:33:37 UTC

Post by Roger Hayter
Personally I don't really know exactly what "being disabled" means. Does
anyone?

Under the Equality act 2010, anyone who has a conditino that affects
their day to day life for 6 months or more is legally classed as "disabled"
This also includes mental health conditions, neurodiversity and even
food intolerances/allergies.

What about erectile dysfunction?

What job are you thinking of applying for?
Are there many vacancies?

There are a few openings I understand....

Pamela

2024-08-31 16:06:24 UTC

Post by s***@englandmail.com
I have been off work for three years to due to mental health problems
(severe depression, suicidal thoughts) and I have been on benefits (UC
+ LCWRA) ever since.
I need to get back to work not really because I want to but because
I'll have to go through some significant expenses that my benefits
can't match.
Granted that no employer would want to touch somebody like me with
such a long gap, I think I could do any entry level work (e.g.
customer service), only that, in my circumstances, I can't really
stand repeated abuse, which unfortunately is the norm in such jobs
(think of how toxic customer service has become in the last few years
compared to 20 years ago when I was in full employment).
What are the legal and practical implications of answering "Yes" to
the "Do you consider yourself disabled" question on a job application
form?
Is it just a statistical question that has no practical relevance?
Or can I ask that my position be protected from excessive stress? Is
this an unrealistic demand?

In view of your fragility, it may be wise to consider applying for
something less stressful than customer service work, with all its
potential for emotionally draining encounters. There are other
entry-level jobs that don't involve personal contact with demanding
people.

Post by s***@englandmail.com
For example (and admitting an employer is masochistic enough to give
me a chance), I am told at the job interview that the position is
suitable for people like me, and then it turns out that this is not
true, how does my disabled status affect this situation?
Thanks.
SF

Omega

2024-09-05 09:40:50 UTC