Protected characteristics, and suspended from work, unfairly treated - now ET Claim

[dx100uk]

threads merged for history

dx

[Emmzzi]

At the prelim hearing the judge will decide whether part or all of your claim can go ahead.

This may include a ruling on whether it was submitted within time.

[Bazooka Boo]

Thank you. I'm confident it's well within time.

[Bazooka Boo]

Quote

we need to discuss the content of the report with you in regard to the impact that your medical condition has on your behaviour and to understand the impact that it may or may not have on your ongoing employment

Is this normal for an employer to ask an employee? 

Am I the only one who thinks this is overstepping the mark?

[unclebulgaria67]

Yes it would be normal to ask, to understand your experience of how your health conditions impact you on a day to day basis, as well as interactions with others.

 

[Bazooka Boo]

Thank you.

I can understand asking these at the beginning of the employment process when going through medicals and occ health. 

But nearly two years down the line? And with management who aren't medically qualified or have lived experience of my disability? 

Not withstanding the choice of language, "your behaviour "..... I'm 50 years old not 5.

This isn't to ask about any adjustments I may need to carry out my role, this is to question someone who is neurodiverse on how they would react to certain situations, and I believe this is so they can say I'm not suitable for the role I've been doing for 15 months.

I strongly doubt that other employees with MH issues and neurodiversity will have had to have been ridiculed and belittled in this way.

I don't understand what the aim of this meeting would be?

[unclebulgaria67]

At what point in your employment did you mention your health conditions and ask about reasonable adjustments?

The point they appear to be getting at, is that the health conditions directly affect your ability to carry out the job you were employed to do.  And therefore they are needing to understand to what extent your health would hinder you.  It is not about them making any judgements about your health. They are wanting you to explain in your own words.

Behaviors are relevant whether someone is 18 or 68.

I think you need to go back to ACAS to get some further advice.

[Emmzzi]

You are expecting accommodations due to your health condition; you have previously stated it affects your behaviour and ability to participate in internal processes.

Of course it is completely reasonable for them to ask about it. How else can they make the adaptations you have said you need, or understand the context and reasons for your behaviour?

"Behaviour" is only a loaded word if you think your behaviour has been malicious. Otherwise - it's only a word that describes things that have been done.

What help are you getting with your stress/ anxiety? My observation is that you are seeing people against you at every turn. That must be exhausting. Time for your support network to kick in?

[Bazooka Boo]

Thank you both for your valuable input, and I agree that I feel under attack.

It's taken almost 6 months to get them to acknowledge that I have a disability, I'm tired and not very well.

I'm due to start some therapy for the PTSD on the 18th of this month, AGAIN!!

Just spoke with ACAS and they are saying I am not obliged to discuss my disability with them unless I wish to do so on my terms, there can be no intrusive questions either, and that I need to be mindful of the employment tribunal prelim hearing in June.

I'm getting a call back from a legal helpline on Sunday regarding this. See what they advise.

[Emmzzi]

I am glad you have access to therapy.

I suggest that neither you nor your manager are the right people to give a definitive opinion on how your condition impacts you at work, and an occupational health referral to a specialist doctor would be what I would suggest/ agree to, if I were you.

I appreciate you may have done this before but it seems if there are unanswered questions, that is the way to get them answered without bias from either party creeping in.

 

[whitelist]

You need to be aware an employer can only make reasonable adjustments if you co-operate with them.

If you do not co-operate, they can make an objective decision on facts they know

That does not mean the employer can directly achieve it, but they can accomplish it through a third party, such as occupational health.

[Bazooka Boo]

They are not asking me  about reasonable adjustments. That's already been discussed. 

I agree, they should refer any questions they might have to a specialist. 

 

[Bazooka Boo]

After taking legal advice, they agreed that this email should be produced in the employment tribunal as the choice of language used by HR is very questionable and verging on discrimination.

When I explained that I had just concluded my disciplinary hearing, which was a verbal warning, he said that this would be harassment and to lodge another formal grievance, I'm not going through that whitewash again.

However, unless it is a 'capability assessment' or to look at reasonable adjustments, then decline their offer. Which I have done so already.

Let's see what tomorrow's correspondence brings.

[Emmzzi]

On 07/04/2024 at 11:11, Bazooka Boo said:

After taking legal advice, they agreed that this email should be produced in the employment tribunal as the choice of language used by HR is very questionable and verging on discrimination.

When I explained that I had just concluded my disciplinary hearing, which was a verbal warning, he said that this would be harassment and to lodge another formal grievance, I'm not going through that whitewash again.

 

So... we are getting half the story again, but you do have legal counsel. As they will be getting the full story from you, I suggest you take their guidance, only.

[Bazooka Boo]

I don't have any legal counsel, I'll be doing this as a LiP.

All I've done is ask the house insurance legal advice line, who then passed me onto employment solicitors for advice regarding this one issue.

I'm not divulging the entire saga on a public forum because there is an employment tribunal pending, and whilst the employer and their HR team are doing a wonderful job of tripping themselves up and dropping themselves in it, I don't want to allow them to get their defence together using information off here.

I'll only be asking relevant questions to my particular issue as and when they arise, what I won't do, is bare all before the ET, and nail myself to the cross.

 

[Bazooka Boo]

On Monday I had an "informal fact-finding meeting",  dressed up as reasonable adjustments.

It didn't go well, and when they were questioned about whether my comparator had sat through the same meeting, it turns out that no other employees are made to sit an 'informal fact finding meeting" before returning to work, the meeting was terminated.

ACAS advised calling the tribunal, and the court informed me that it can be added to the prelim hearing.

I'm speechless as to their continued blatant discrimination, it's absolutely incredible, and this is the head of HR!

 

[Bazooka Boo]

Had the grievance hearing last Friday regarding the 'informal fact-finding meeting', and hopefully find out the result by the end of the week.

I now need to inform them I deem the head of HR's conduct as harassment, although it's part of the claim with the PH in June, the number of emails he has churned out since October inferring I am lying and degrading me is quite staggering.

Had a really good webinar last Thursday with Valla, who clarified that almost all of the responses the respondents return always claim that you are out of time, and then go on to make out that your claim is full of untruths, the employer didn't do this that or other.....

Will wait and see what the first stage of this grievance will uphold? I'm not holding my breath...

 

[Emmzzi]

I would just say, ask your most challenging friend to review the emails. Are they really inferring or is your perception clouded because of your mental state? For example; asking a question is not an inference.

I say this so you don't waste the court's time with minor hurts or imagined slights;  they want the significant elements. Otherwise their perception of you may be negative from the offset. 

[Bazooka Boo]

No they are really inferring, it's in black and white.

My perception is correct. 

ACAS and a solicitor plus my therapist, who has had sight of the language used by the head of HR, have all come to the same conclusion as I.

I can't be responsible for the Courts perception of me, that's none of my business. 

Hopefully this grievance will go some way to address their behaviour.

Thanks once again for your opinion...

[Emmzzi]

I would only rely on your solicitor in this regard. The other two should not have a view.

 

And, you are responsible for how the court perceive you. They only have your words and deeds to go on. Expecting them to magically see things your way is not a great tactic.

Edited May 13 by Emmzzi

[Bazooka Boo]

Thank god you're not a part of the tribunal!

Terribly biased and negative. 

HR isn't all knowing. And this case proves it.

Thanks again for your opinion. 

I'm not going to court because of a few emails, I'm going to court because the head of HR has invented a PCP solely for me, which no other employee is made to sit.

The language used in the emails is discriminatory and inflammatory.