www.workrep.co.uk

---

The judge criticised intrusive employment application forms that can be used to discriminate against disabled people. Disabled workers not infrequently find that after answering such questions truthfully they have subsequently not been offered the job.

Help WorkRep volunteers protect workers' rights

Laird only just managed to get the job (17/18 votes) and almost certainly would not have done had she admitted to her disability.

The judge criticised intrusive employment application forms that can be used to discriminate against disabled people. Disabled workers not infrequently find that after answering such questions truthfully they have subsequently not been offered the job. Whilst Laird was with Cheltenham Borough Council there were bitter disputes between her and staff, councillors and unions. Much of the time Laird reported sick owing to stress. When she left Cheltenham Borough Council wanted almost £1m back from the former managing director saying they had been misled when she failed to tell them about the depression that she suffered from. The High Court however found that in the light of winning her position by just one vote, had Laird disclosed her medical history she would not have been offered the job.

The High Court found that Laird did not deliberately misled Cheltenham Borough Council when answering her medical questionnaire despite having failed to mention attacks of depression.The answers were not untruthful because questions asked by the Council in its job application form could have been answered in different ways.

Examples of questions asked and Laird's answers:

'do you have a physical or mental impairment?' - 'No' (judgment - "She did not have an impairment in the technical sense – i.e. under the Mental Health Act or the [Disability Discrimination Act]". "She had a vulnerability to episodes of depressive disorder but she did not have an ongoing depressive disorder")

'do you normally enjoy good health' – 'yes' ( judgment - "When depressed she did not enjoy good health. When not depressed, she did. But she was only depressed for limited periods prior to January 2002 and this was not her 'normal' state of health.......A reasonable person in Mrs Laird's position would regard herself as normally enjoying good health.")

Laird took anti-depressant medicine but declared that she had no ongoing medical condition that would affect her employment ( judgment - "Medically, whether Mrs Laird had an ongoing medical condition is a difficult question... She had a vulnerability to depression but not one that was manifesting itself at that time. The vulnerability was ongoing but not the depression.") The High Court decided that Laird had not wilfully withheld important information or filled out the application questionnaire fraudulently. It found important Laird's own honest assessment of her health. " What matters is Mrs Laird's understanding of her medical condition rather than her actual condition. Her understanding was that she had suffered attacks of anxiety and stress due to specific events, but not that she had suffered or was suffering from a depressive disorder." An argument in Laird's defence that the court did not accept was whatever she wrote in the medical report was irrelevant as her job offer had been offered unconditionally. The court instead found that medical fitness was a condition of receiving the job. Because there had been no dishonesty however the Council's action was dismissed.

Although this case was exceptional in that an employer was suing the employee rather than the other way round, disabled workers should take advice if they are asked to answer intrusive questions when applying for jobs.

It can be advantageous to be frank about any disabilities. If the employer then rejects you in the light of your having disclosed a poor sickness record he will need to do a lot of explaining if you make a disability discrimination claim under the Disability Discrimination Act in the employment tribunal. Under the Disability Discrimination Act it is illegal to refuse to offer a worker employment because of a disability. This is the reverse side of intrusive questioning about disabilities;it can help establish the discriminatory basis of refusing the disabled worker the job.

If you decide to disclose a disability to a potential employer he must then taken into account your need for reasonable adjustments during the interview process and then afterwards as to the terms that a job will be offered under.

That the employer knows you are a disabled job applicant can also offer you a lot of protection once in the job. The advantages and disadvantages of disclosing a disability to a potential employer need to be weighed up carefully on an individual basis.

As if to exemplify the minefield that taking an employment claim to tribunal is, the judge explained that had Laird been honest about her disability and been denied the job on the grounds of her depression in the past she would have most likely have received no protection from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. This was because Christine Laird was not disabled when she applied for her job.

The transcript of this case can be found  Here