Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • but the other debts are part of this big picture and its eventual solution a rough idea will help.   if if if they ever get another powerless repo/dca involved, they will tell you well in advance.   help us please
    • to do what they are powerless...   you like 10'00'000 of other s jump because a dca says this or that a DCA is not a bailiff and has zero legal powers on any debt no matter what its type.   another one of your issues is following stupid freeman of the land twaddle. very dangerous.don't   moorcroft dont by debts they only act for clients.   as long as you don't run from debt and insure the debt owners or 'the client' has from you a letter which states your correct and current address or you did so to the Original creditor before any sale or your haven't moved since taking 'the credit' out you are safe from backdoor CCJ's to an old address.   sit on your hands and see if the owner of the debt want to issue a letter of claim. if they do  you return here   A CCJ - which is the only tool they have - because just like us joe public, its the only thing we can legally do if we claim someone owes us money - they have no more powers that you or me
    • That is why I (specifically) said "the lender".
    • eeeh i see ... I just really need a little help, that's why I am here. Being funny does not mean that I am a troll or something and English is not my native language. I just don`t know what to do next, that`s all
    • Just to be clear the dca doesnt decide where a debt shows the oc does that upon their backdoor sign ups with contractors.   lets await the sars    
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Can disability discrimination in recruitment occur without a job offer?


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3481 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Most cases of disability discrimination involve someone applying for a job without revealing their disability. On being offered a job, they then divulge their disability. Subsequently the job offer is revoked.

 

I was wondering at what point does disability discrimination happen?

 

Take for example the following scenario. Someone applies for a job divulging their disability on application. Post-interview feedback gives reasons for rejection clearly related to their disability. E.g. lack of evidence of team-work skills, when that persons disability means team-work is particularly difficult for them. On paper there is clearly a better candidate for the job anyway, in terms of relevant experience (that the candidate mentioned above may have had if they were ever given the opportunity by an employer, and were not discriminated against all the time). Could an Employment Tribunal in such an instance be successful?

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be successful, but there would have to be compelling evidence to suggest that the SOLE reason for rejecting the disabled candidate was the disability. The example that you give is not a particularly good one as such an inability to work as part of a team would inevitably exclude any candidate where that criteria was essential to the role, whether disabled or not. There would be little that an employer could do to accommodate an applicant who could not work well with a team where that was an essential part of the job. A more relevant example would be perhaps where a role does not necessarily require a candidate to have a particular ability but they are rejected because they have that disability - eg An applicant for a desk based role is rejected purely because he is wheelchair bound, where the role does not actually require the employee to be mobile anyway. Although he is in all other ways the ideal person, the employer does not want the hassle of having to accommodate a wheelchair user.

 

A wise employer would make sure that in the interview notes, scoring information etc that ALL characteristics of each candidate had been considered in order to prove that the disability was not a factor. The Equality Act does not mean that a disabled applicant must be offered the role in preference to a better candidate, merely that where there are candidates of equal suitability for the job, a disabled applicant should not be rejected solely because of the condition.

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The example that you give is not a particularly good one as such an inability to work as part of a team would inevitably exclude any candidate where that criteria was essential to the role, whether disabled or not. There would be little that an employer could do to accommodate an applicant who could not work well with a team where that was an essential part of the job.

And herein lies where the discrimination is. There are adjustments that can be made if you think out of the box, such as contact via email - which in fact people at most workplaces do anyway. Even just a little consideration could go a long way and is a reasonable adjustment. There are numerous published books on the types of adjustments that can be made under such circumstances. Plus it is only the employer's opinion such skills are important. These skills are included as default requirements for almost every single job ever advertised.

 

Plus I feel there is also the issue of a range of ability. Someone with less ability may still be able, and it would be unfair to go for the most able in every situation. Particularly if the less able person is so because of a disability. It would be like demanding someone have a racing driver's license and F1 experience to be a taxi driver. It just doesn't make any sense as a reasonable requirement for the position.

 

It also brings to question why an employer would interview someone who may be unable to do the job. If someone declared they were a wheel chair user and applied for a job which required them to be able bodied, such as window cleaning, marathon running etc - then it would surely be a waste of time to interview them?!

Edited by leedsguy
Link to post
Share on other sites
And herein lies where the discrimination is. There are adjustments that can be made if you think out of the box, such as contact via email - which in fact people at most workplaces do anyway. Even just a little consideration could go a long way and is a reasonable adjustment. There are numerous published books on the types of adjustments that can be made under such circumstances. Plus it is only the employer's opinion such skills are important. These skills are included as default requirements for almost every single job ever advertised.

 

Plus I feel there is also the issue of a range of ability. Someone with less ability may still be able, and it would be unfair to go for the most able in every situation. Particularly if the less able person is so because of a disability. It would be like demanding someone have a racing driver's license and F1 experience to be a taxi driver. It just doesn't make any sense as a reasonable requirement for the position.

 

It also brings to question why an employer would interview someone who may be unable to do the job. If someone declared they were a wheel chair user and applied for a job which required them to be able bodied, such as window cleaning, marathon running etc - then it would surely be a waste of time to interview them?!

 

I get the point that you are making, and I agree entirely, however the problem is always going to be proof that the employer has rejected a candidate for discriminatory reasons. An employer should assess all candidates with a view to whether they are the most suitable to do the job, and any disability should be a secondary consideration - ie we want to employ this person, so how can we, if at all, accommodate their individual needs.

 

To use your example, then yes, there are certainly SOME occasions where the 'teamwork' might be accomplished through non face to face means, but in other situations this simply may not be achievable. In an office based position, where every member of the team has email access, maybe, but in a position where the candidate would have to manage and rally a team say, on a shop floor and be continually monitoring and encouraging staff to complete tasks, this would be completely unworkable. It would most likely also not be a reasonable adjustment either to provide a high vantage point and a megaphone, or to provide each employee with a PDA and email so that the manager could do the job remotely.

 

Any job description or advert should avoid specifying certain requirements UNLESS they are crucial to the position being advertised. In that case, for a window cleaner, a certain range of movement and an ability to move efficiently between jobs would be a pre-requisite, so an employer would be reasonably safe to exclude a wheelchair user without interview.

 

The point is that the approach should vary for every position on offer and a competent employer should be able to determine the most appropriate candidates before having any knowledge of disability. If an interview or further screening then discloses a disability, then it should be a matter of whether, and if so to what extent the disability would prevent the candidate from fulfilling the role.

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...