Discrimination, stupidy, or just a mistake?

dbnavan

I phoned up about a job in the paper last week, as I have cerebral palsy I have a slur in my voice which makes me sound stoned or drunk, a real pain in the ar$e let me tell ye's

Anyway I was immediately told the job was gone, I got a sneaky feeling that the guy was lying, i knew by his tone, and the fact the job was only advertised that day, so I got my misses to ring about the position, she had got an interview straight away.

I was so angered by this I rang the Equality Authority and they immediately said I would have a case. I filled out the forms online, and just received a;ll the paper work in the post. And I have a 21 day period to consider it. Anyone I have spoken to said, the guy was an idiot but it was a mistake, however the point is this is what I am constantly up against when job hunting. I know the ultimate decision is mine, but in my shoes what would you do.

stepbar

dbnavan wrote:

I phoned up about a job in the paper last week, as I have cerebral palsy I have a slur in my voice which makes me sound stoned or drunk, a real pain in the ar$e let me tell ye's

Anyway I was immediately told the job was gone, I got a sneaky feeling that the guy was lying, i knew by his tone, and the fact the job was only advertised that day, so I got my misses to ring about the position, she had got an interview straight away.

I was so angered by this I rang the Equality Authority and they immediately said I would have a case. I filled out the forms online, and just received a;ll the paper work in the post. And I have a 21 day period to consider it. Anyone I have spoken to said, the guy was an idiot but it was a mistake, however the point is this is what I am constantly up against when job hunting. I know the ultimate decision is mine, but in my shoes what would you do.

Go for it, yer man will think twice next time. Good luck with it.

The Hill Billy

If I were in your shoes my gut reaction would be to take them to the cleaners. However...

Have you considered calling them & asking again for an interview & explain that your speech is somewhat impaired because of your cerebral palsy? (Before anyone jumps down my throat for saying that - I am by no means stating that anyone should have to make excuses for their physical condition.) The guy you spoke with may have been an ignorant gob****e & not the person hiring. You would be affording them the opportunity to put things right. If they fob you off again - you'll have more ammunition for your case.

It could be boiled down to what's more important to you - The chance of getting the job OR teaching the company a lesson?

Best of luck. Be sure to let us know how you get on.

DOLEMAN

Did you tell them you have cerebral palsy? If not, how is it discrimination? If someone rang me asking about a job and they sounded drunk/stoned/dodgy, I wouldn't want to waste my time interviewing them.

dbnavan

DOLEMAN wrote:

Did you tell them you have cerebral palsy? If not, how is it discrimination? If someone rang me asking about a job and they sounded drunk/stoned/dodgy, I wouldn't want to waste my time interviewing them.

Sounding something (ie:drunk/stoned/dodgy) and actully being 1 of the 3 are totally different things. You do not have to disclose anything about disability when applying for a position as it immediatly leaves you at a disadvantage.

DOLEMAN

Yes, but I seriously doubt he was thinking, "this fella's disabled". I am sure he was just thinking, "wtf?" and didn't want to take it further.

I'm sorry to hear about this, and I am sure it was upsetting, but I just reckon if that was me, "disabled" would not have crossed my mind.

danielbr

Doleman, I have to say I am somewhat shocked at your reaction.

And I am a little bit annoyed with the fact you put disabled in inverted comma's. I find that highly offensive, and somewhat patronising.

dbnavan, should not have to explain himself for the way he speaks, nor should anyone. What if someone called up who had a stammer, would you react in the same way. Saying that "this guy is taking the piss". If you did you'd be out of business long ago.

dbnavan, while it shouldnt be the case I suggest that you call up again and ask for a reason why you were told the job was gone, and yet your wife got an interview. You need an explanation, and if you dont get one then I would proceed with your legal action

Gillo

danielbr wrote:

dbnavan, should not have to explain himself for the way he speaks, nor should anyone. What if someone called up who had a stammer, would you react in the same way. Saying that "this guy is taking the piss". If you did you'd be out of business long ago.

Having a stammer does not make you sound stoned or drunk, having a slur does there's a big difference, come down from your high horse.

OP, it's unfortunate that you have CP but call up about the job again, this time as soon as they answer explain that you have a condition that causes you to have a slurred voice and ask them to be patient.
Did they even get as far as asking about experience / qualifications?

Just asking but what sort of job was it?

Xterminator

danielbr, we live in the real world.

Perhaps you have never heard of first impressions?

I dont see why you are critising doleman, when he was only being realistic. I too have taken calls and interviewed for positions. and like all people we make assumtions, based on appearance, and other visual and audio cues.

Over the phone, audio cues are all you get, and hence all the more important. If the interviwer made assumptions, such as this person is drunk, they have a skanger accent, or they may not be mentally capable etc, it might serve dbnavan's interest to explain this is not the case to the person on the phone, so as to increase his chances of getting the job. After all this is the objective, to ge tthe job neh?

I'm not commenting on the wrongs or rights of assumptions, just pointing out they do exist, and by acknowledging this, it will aid someone in their job search.

Finally i think it is clear in this case that someone decided against allowing dbnavan apply for the job, but the <b>reason </b> why they did, hasnt been revealed.

(EG by wearing a suit to an interview you send a visual cue).

X

DOLEMAN

danielbr wrote:

Doleman, I have to say I am somewhat shocked at your reaction.

And I am a little bit annoyed with the fact you put disabled in inverted comma's. I find that highly offensive, and somewhat patronising.

dbnavan, should not have to explain himself for the way he speaks, nor should anyone. What if someone called up who had a stammer, would you react in the same way. Saying that "this guy is taking the piss". If you did you'd be out of business long ago.

What are you talking about? As gillo said, get down off your bull**** high horse.

I am sure you are terrified of calling a black person black or a disabled person disabled, but the reality of the world is most people don't assume the people they are speaking to has cerebral palsy. I do believe the OP should have mentioned it to the employer if he is aware that his slurred voice is "a pain in the arse".

seamus

I don't think you have a valid case for discrimination here. In order for the person to discriminate against you they would have to know (or suspect) that you have a disability (or an otherwise discriminatory condition), and discriminate against you for that reason. Believing that the caller was messing/stoned/drunk is a perfectly valid reason for not giving them an interview. Ignorant? Perhaps. Wrong? I don't think so.

As gillo says, ring them again, explain to them your condition and then proceed.

Let us know what the Equality Authority says. Although I suspect it is, I'm not sure if it's an offence to not bring someone in for interview based on discrimination (rather it may just be illegal to refuse to hire on the basis of discrimination).

dbnavan

seamus wrote:

I don't think you have a valid case for discrimination here..

The Equality Authority say I do.

seamus wrote:

In order for the person to discriminate against you they would have to know (or suspect) that you have a disability (or an otherwise discriminatory condition), and discriminate against you for that reason. Believing that the caller was messing/stoned/drunk is a perfectly valid reason for not giving them an interview. Ignorant? Perhaps. Wrong? I don't think so.

See your point, however its debatable

seamus wrote:

As gillo says, ring them again, explain to them your condition and then proceed.

Let us know what the Equality Authority says. Although I suspect it is, I'm not sure if it's an offence to not bring someone in for interview based on discrimination (rather it may just be illegal to refuse to hire on the basis of discrimination).

Now would not be a good time to ring back, firstly it was a week ago, so the job is actually probably gone now. Secondly I recived paperwork from Equality Tribunal today, which means they did too. I have 21 days to decide to proceed.

Mezcita

Go for it dude. Teach em a lesson.

DOLEMAN

But if the employer says, "he sounded drunk, I don't want to interview a drunk person" and then he discovers this topic where you say "I sound like a drunk person on the phone", I cannot see how you will win this case.

Of course, if you had told him you have cerebal palsy I'd totally be on your side, but I really think the employer has done nothing particularily wrong here.

Seriously, who thinks they are talking to a person with cerebal palsy? I really think it's an innocent enough decision he made.

dbnavan

DOLEMAN wrote:

But if the employer says, "he sounded drunk, I don't want to interview a drunk person" and then he discovers this topic where you say "I sound like a drunk person on the phone", I cannot see how you will win this case.

Of course, if you had told him you have cerebal palsy I'd totally be on your side, but I really think the employer has done nothing particularily wrong here.

Seriously, who thinks they are talking to a person with cerebal palsy? I really think it's an innocent enough decision he made.

I'd really have a problem to be drunk at half eleven in the morning. He didnt know I was drunk, he wrongly prusumed me to be. He may not have even considered me to be drunk, I just suggested that may have been a reason, he may have know it was a disabled slur. As he didnt give a reason. He just said the job was gone and slammed down the phone.

Morlar

You said yourself that your disability makes you sound drunk or stoned - the guy on the other end of the phone thought he had a stoned /drunk person on the phone - If I was looking to hire somone and they rang up sounding drunk or stoned I would probably say the same thing.

If you had mentioned to him that you were disabled (and that this wouldnt affect your ability to do the job) and he then lied about the job being gone - then that would be a different story.

dbnavan

Morlar wrote:

If you had mentioned to him that you were disabled (and that this wouldnt affect your ability to do the job) and he then lied about the job being gone - then that would be a different story.

I didnt get to talk long enough to get to that point, I literally said "good morning my name is ............ I am ringing about the position in the paper."

What should I say "Hi before you hang up, I have cerebral palsy, just incase you think I am stoned!!"

stepbar

All Mr. Recruitment man had to do was say "send in a CV", he could do what he liked with it afterwards. TBH the man obviously wasnt very smart. If the Eq authority think you have a case go for it. Get some legal advise as well though.

Morlar

dbnavan wrote:

What should I say "Hi before you hang up, I have cerebral palsy, just incase you think I am stoned!!"

I know you were being sarcastic there - but had you managed to get that point made during the call you would now have a rock solid case. Orrrrr you might have gotten further than a screening call (depending on your experience/aptitude and ability to do the job that was being advertised - same as everybody else going for it).

DOLEMAN

What will happen if you do take a case against this guy - will you get money or simply an opportunity to have a interview/do the job? If he says, "OK, sorry, didn't realise, come work here" would you really want to work there??

dbnavan

it would be my only option if all employers acted the way he did. Fact is I shouldnt have to be in a position of hitting an employer with something negitive about me before he even gets my name.

seamus

dbnavan wrote:

it would be my only option if all employers acted the way he did. Fact is I shouldnt have to be in a position of hitting an employer with something negitive about me before he even gets my name.

Why is it something negative?

While the employer could have perhaps been a little more diplomatic about it (as someone said "send in your CV, thanks"), you've probably realised that people need a little help when it comes to identifying these things. 9 people out of ten won't know that slurring your speech is part of cerebral palsy (I didn't know till you started this thread). 9 times out of ten, when you come across someone at 11.30 in the morning, slurring their speech, they are drunk (from personal experience).

Thus, all you're doing is eliminating the instant sterotype by explaining your condition when you call first. In a perfect world, people wouldn't prejudge anyone else, but this is the real world.

Sangre

The only thing this case will achieve is punish someone made the innocent mistake of not offering an interview to someone who he thought was drunk. What kind of person in their right mind would continue the conversation if he thought the person on the other line was drunk? I don't think anyone 9well the majority) ever makes the connection of slurring your voice and being disabled.

You could have rang back after your wife did and explained the situation, he probably would have been mortified and fallen over himself to help you. This going to court would another sign of our over-litigious society (says the lawyer).

That said I do fully emphatise with your situation and it be very frustating for this to occur constantly. Unfortunately I guess this is one of the down sides of having the condition.

Morlar

dbnavan wrote:

Fact is I shouldnt have to be in a position of hitting an employer with something negitive about me before he even gets my name.

I agree you shouldnt but it sounds like it might be a practical idea.

By your own admission you sound drunk or stoned due to a speech condition.

I dont see the problem in an employer expecting someone with that condition to point out that it is a speech condition and not an indicator of drunkenness - (which it would otherwise be 99% likely to be).

I havent actually heard you speak so I cant say for sure - but going by what you have said I dont think the employer in this case was unreasonable - what would you have them do ? Line up interviews every timewasting drunk/stoner in case the 1 out of a 100 happens to be genuinely disabled person who wants to work (but just isnt comfortable mentioning that fact) ?

chump

No, I think you're right to take it further.

At the very least it will raise awareness among 'recruitment types' that they must be respectful and courteous to everyone (and not blatantly lie), even if a drunk person was ringing for an interview.
Secondly it will raise awareness amongst everybody who hears of the case, including the people on these boards, that some people have slurred speech and these people aren't necessarily drunk.

The law's is in your favour, and it is right that it is.
Best of luck

gerrycollins

Just out of curiousity what were the details of your conversation with the equaility auth?

Are they aware that the "man" did not know of your CP?

Im sorry this happened and Im sure during interview process you can more than likely feel the no coming its way before the hello is even said as happens a mate of mine

The assumption that he did what he did based on ur voice patterns is valid,i wouldnt entertain someonewho was drunk even thought i wouldnt be as harsh as he was,id ask a few questions first, but the fact that you have stated that you sound stoned/drunk does not bode well for any case you may take, but the onus is on them to prove that they didnt discriminated against because of CP and it will be hard because as is obvious its a disability that can be seen not heard if you understand me

I detest people who look upon disabled as some sort of contaigous disease and am all for a case like yours to susceed but the merits of your case do not look like they will be a sucess im sorry

The Hill Billy

dbnavan:

Are you really thinking of giving up your job in the school?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51710904&postcount=50

Or was this started to elicit people's reactions to the supposed scenario that you described at the start of this thread?

Yours interestedly...

dbnavan

Hill Billy wrote:

dbnavan:

Are you really thinking of giving up your job in the school?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51710904&postcount=50

Or was this started to elicit people's reactions to the supposed scenario that you described at the start of this thread?

Yours interestedly...

Yes I am, not that its any of your business, I work in a school 1 day a week teaching computers(for the last 6 years)......Contracted, by the parents committee. Wanna see my CV, or maybe phone them to check.

mountainyman

Xterminator wrote:

danielbr, we live in the real world.
X

Precisely he owes this crowd nothing. If you are constantly impeded by a condition why not make it work for you when you get the chance.

MM

smarty

I strongly disagree with the posters with the attitude of "take him to the cleaners". For what?

I don't have to interview everyone who applies for a job with my company. A lot of companies don't even respond to job applications. The person you spoke to was not aware of your condition, so therefore, they did not disciminate against you based on this.

However, your wife (misses) then phoned up, and was offered an interview immediately. If they were screening applicants, based on gender, and specifically looking for a woman, then they could well be guilty of discrimination.

Supercell

dbnavan , while I do sympathise, I don't think you're going to get far with a discrimination claim unless he knew of your medical condition which seems highly unlikely by your own words in the first post "I have a slur in my voice which makes me sound stoned or drunk".

If he thought you were drunk or stoned in the morning than many would argue that it was perfectly rational for him to assume you would not make a suitable candidate and therefore he let you down in a reasonable way (if you had indeed been a drunk or pothead).

While you shouldn't have to say up front that you are disabled, without prior knowledge its unreasonable for you to assume that the average man on the street can tell the difference over a phone line.

I'd go with Gordan here, ring up and say that your speech is impaired be cause of your disability but it definatly wouldn't affect your ability to do the role advertised and take it from there, and hopefully then they will treat you just like everyone else (with an equal opportunity of getting or not getting the job)

Pythia

dbnavan wrote:

The Equality Authority say I do.

The Equality Authority have an agenda tbh.

Gillo

Pythia wrote:

The Equality Authority have an agenda tbh.

I had been trying to think of a nice way of putting it but as Pythia says they have an agenda, it's liek goin going to the CAI for consumer advice they push their own agenda, not a the real world agenda.

DBnavan, as I asked before what sort fo job is it??

dbnavan

gillo wrote:

DBnavan, as I asked before what sort fo job is it??

Not that it seems relevent but Bar floor staff, of which I have expeirence

dbnavan

Pythia wrote:

The Equality Authority have an agenda tbh.

An agenda of what?? They stand to gain nothing they are an independent body

smarty wrote:

I strongly disagree with the posters with the attitude of "take him to the cleaners". For what?

I don't have to interview everyone who applies for a job with my company. .

No but you give everyone a fair opportunity to at least send a CV in, I am sure. Which is all he had to do, he has nothing to lose by that.

Pythia

What gillo said basically.
They won't give you impartial advice.
I actually have quite strong views on the Equality Authority but I'll keep quiet.

dbnavan

Pythia wrote:

What gillo said basically.
They won't give you impartial advice.
I actually have quite strong views on the Equality Authority but I'll keep quiet.

They give you advice on what is written in law in accordance with the Employment Acts of 1998 and 2000, this is law which is contained within the irish statute book. now if you know a way of giving impartial advice on written law, I'd love to know.

Pythia

A tax planner also works with written law, yet they generally manage to manipulate the law in your favour.
Same thing here.

dbnavan

But you are still failing to how a government body, can be anything but impartial. What have they to gain, Care to give an example.

Gillo

dbnavan wrote:

They give you advice on what is written in law in accordance with the Employment Acts of 1998 and 2000, this is law which is contained within the irish statute book. now if you know a way of giving impartial advice on written law, I'd love to know.

Ever wonder why top barristers and solicitors are minted, it's not that they know the law, it's that they know the law are know how to interupt best for their clients interest.

Why did i want to know why you the job was for?
Speech and intoniation (spelling??) is relevent to alot of jobs, would you listen to Gerry Ryan if he had a slurred voice or what if you called a tech support line and the guy had a slurred voice. I don't mean it in a bad way, one of the companies I deal with have a massive call centre in India, customer's are constantly moanign to me that they can't understand they people and this is just with a difference in accent.
As you said yourself you sound drunk, yet you applied for a job in a bar; go figure.

I've seen the equality authority do good work, but they have a agenda of equal rights to push, any chance of pushign it they will do it, don't get me wrong, I think do a good job. But all to often organisations see it as a crusade, look at amnesty they time the two gus got shot in Lusk while holding up a Post Office, they never mentioned the human rights of the the people behind the, the OAP collecting their pension or the children buying some sweets on the way to school, all they were intereseted in was their own agenda, no matter what other people said.

seamus

Statutory bodies have a tendency to fall on the side of those they're supposed to help serve :- The CAI as above, have a tendency to fight for consumers, even when they're not necessarily on solid ground. The EA are similar in that they will also be biased towards those who may be discriminated against, rather that treating all cases as equal. I'm white, male and early twenties. The EA would laugh at me if I went to them about my car insurance. Change my sex, and they'd fight for me. As gillo says, this doesn't necessarily negate the good work they can do, but it doesn't mean that they're the best judge of every case.

They also lost a high-profile court case recently where they were found to have discriminated against one of their own female employees. That shows up serious cracks in their ability to give advice.

Gillo

dbnavan wrote:

But you are still failing to how a government body, can be anything but impartial. What have they to gain, Care to give an example.

Um, planning tribunal came from impartial decisions..... DISCUSS

dbnavan

gillo wrote:

Speech and intoniation (spelling??) is relevent to alot of jobs, would you listen to Gerry Ryan if he had a slurred voice or what if you called a tech support line and the guy had a slurred voice. I don't mean it in a bad way, one of the companies I deal with have a massive call centre in India, customer's are constantly moanign to me that they can't understand they people and this is just with a difference in accent.

Well I cant be that bad, as I have worked in Technical Support, and dont generally have problems on the phone

dbnavan

gillo wrote:

Um, planning tribunal came from impartial decisions..... DISCUSS

Dont want to go off topic, nor do I feel I am sufficiently knowledged in the workings planning tribunal.

Gillo

dbnavan wrote:

Dont want to go off topic, nor do I feel I am sufficiently knowledged in the workings planning tribunal.

Appologies teh "discuss" was meant to make it look like an eassy title, my attempt at humor didn't work:(

My point was that had county councils (goverment bodies) been impartial, there would have been no need for planning tribunials.

smarty

I really think there could be a case for discrimination based on Gender here. Anyone agree?

Dirk Gently

I'm gonna come at this one from a different angle, if for no other reason other than I feel like having a bit of a waffle.

Seems to me that a few people who are discouraging dbnavan from perusing his claim are approaching the situation from a real world perspective but only applying the real world scenario to the employer in question while expecting dbnavan to take the idealistic route and give the employer the benefit of the doubt. I think if you apply the real world scenario to dbnavan it would support his case to make a claim. I’ll try to explain what I mean……..

The real world:

The real world is a greedy place. Employers run a business for the purpose of making a profit and not for the benefit of society or promoting equality. It can be argued that business for profit benefits society but that’s only a side effect that happens in some cases and is not the reason why the business exists in the first place. The employer wants to make as much money for him/her self as they can regardless of whether this has a positive or negative effect on equality or society in general. The employer will hire the person he can get who will work the longest hours for the least pay so to maximise his profits. This can lead to situations where a pregnant woman might not get offered a job ahead of someone who wasn’t pregnant because she would cost the employer money while she takes time off a few months down the line. Same goes for people looking for a certain wage and another potential employee offers to work for less and gets the job instead or a person with a disability who may be seen as a hassle or someone who requires extra training might get over looked for someone else.

These are all realities of the real world of Business. The idea is to make money for the employer and cut costs and wages to a minimum. Because this is ultimately a destructive philosophy when it comes to equality certain counter real world bodies needed to be set up to counteract discrimination and inequality, namely trade unions and equal opportunity agencies where you can complain if you feel unfairly treated. This creates a much needed safety net for employees to shield them from the harsh realities of the true nature of Business. Often equality is in direct conflict with employers interests.

To put it simply, in the real world, life’s not fair and people have to accept that. Profit is the main goal of business and everything else is secondary or side effects (positive or negative on society)

Idealistic utopias:

In an ideal world we would all be living in an open, tolerant and socially responsible society. We would not encounter discrimination, inequality or racism and Liverpool would win the premier League every year. Everybody would get a fair chance in life and everyone would be afforded an opportunity to participate or at least get an equal shot at participating in the job of their choice. In an ideal world, dbnavan would have got his interview and with his previous experience of bar work should have been in with a realistic chance of getting offered the job.
As we all now the idealistic world is not a reality in our society. We live in the real world as it is at the moment. We are constantly in conflict with the real world philosophy which is every man for himself and tuff shit to anyone who feels hard done by.

The question of what to do regarding dbnavan pursuing his case:

Now people are arguing that because we live in the real world, that the employer is not at fault for his mistake and that if dbnavan thinks he was hard done by he is not living in reality and is being idealistic. I happen to agree with you people who argue this. Dbnavan is thinking idealistically if he thinks he is going to get a fair crack at the whip.

I argue that, seen as we are indeed living in the real world, dbnavan should apply that real world philosophy to himself. In an every man for himself situation dbnavan should pursue his case further with the Equality Authority; after all he is just applying the real life philosophy of the business world to himself. He should pursue the case and seek financial compensation. In a tough world he needs to do what he can to look after his own interests. I’m making an assumption here and it could be completely untrue in dbnavans case as I don’t know him personally but generally I would assume that people with a disability of whatever kind, might find it harder to find opportunities and in a lot of cases get over looked unfairly because of misconceptions or ignorance on the part of employers judging them before they get the chance to actually prove their actual abilities or skill levels. Seen as how this is the real world and life is not fair and all that, dbnavan has every right to pursue the case even if it is unfair on the employer in question. Why should dbnavan be told tough shit, welcome to the real world, while at the same time turning the other cheek and accepting the employers inability to offer him the basic opportunity of sending in a C.V.

Speaking of looking after number one and the attitudes of business, I mentioned that sometimes business can have positive or negative effects on society but that those effects are secondary to the real agenda of making a profit for the owner.
Dbnavan should he choose to look after number one and use the Equality Authority as his vehicle to achieve this, would as well as possibly getting a cash settlement, also would most likely achieve a secondary objective in that the employer will review his hiring policy and ensure that in future a fairer hiring system is in place. I think that dbnavan should go ahead with his case provided he has a good chance of winning (which he indicated he has according to the equality authority) By maximising his limited opportunities and making use of the equality authority he can go a small way towards balancing out the conflict between equality and employers interests for himself and also take a bigger step in ensuring that future applicants to that particular employer have a fairer chance of getting the job. The fact that its a pub makes it all the sweeter in my opinion, Id rather see my overpriced pints benefit someone else rather than line the pockets of a publican but that’s just my cynicism speaking there.

To cut a long story short (no good now if you just read all my waffle) ……..
Life’s not fair. People get shit on all the time and in this case dbnavan should shit on the employer because to do otherwise would be to live in an idealistic world and not in reality.

Wishbone Ash

smarty wrote:

I really think there could be a case for discrimination based on Gender here. Anyone agree?

I don't know how you can come to that conclusion from the scant information here. We know that a female was granted an interview. That doesn't automatically mean discrimination. Approximately 50% of the population are female. We don't know how many others were granted an interview, nor do we know the gender of any other applicants. To deem it to be discriminatory, one would have to prove that the employer deliberately sought females in a position that could be filled by either gender.


dbnavan - you said in an early post that you are not obliged to tell a prospective employer about your disability. I think you are obliged to tell them if your disability could affect your capacity to do the job or to allow an employer to make physical modifications to the workplace.

Gillo

clown bag wrote:

I'm gonna come at this one from a different angle, if for no other reason other than I feel like having a bit of a waffle.

Nothing like a good waffle to clear out the head.
Clown bag, actually seems to be the first person to be looking at this from both points of view, thanks for putting forward an unbiased opinion. I see where you are coming from, but in a realisitc world I honestly don't think DBnavan has a strong case, in the long run it may well cost him money to persue the issue. Without wantign to bring the conversation back, but as has already been pointed out the EA do have their own agenda.

Rev Hellfire

Wishbone Ash wrote:

dbnavan - you said in an early post that you are not obliged to tell a prospective employer about your disability. I think you are obliged to tell them if your disability could affect your capacity to do the job or to allow an employer to make physical modifications to the workplace.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the issues in this topic. The problem a disabled person applying for a position faces is not their ability to do the job but rather getting the opportunity to be considered for a job. An employer is entitled to take the most qualified candidate for a job, but cannot use a person’s disability as a means to disqualify them.
This is the issue here dbnavan was denied the right to even compete for the position.

Wishbone Ash

Rev Hellfire wrote:

The problem a disabled person applying for a position faces is not their ability to do the job but rather getting the opportunity to be considered for a job.

Point accepted.