[paddym22]

Taken from http://www.xperthr.co.uk/blogs/emplo...irector-f.html

Cheltenham Borough Council is suing former managing director Christine Laird for failing to disclose a history of depression when she applied for the job, in an unusual High Court case.

The local authority is claiming fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation on the grounds that Laird concealed her medical history during the selection process, including the fact that she had to take time off work for depression and had been taking anti-depressants for several years. According to her employer, she was asked in a pre-employment questionnaire whether or not she saw herself as disabled, but answered "no". She said "yes" when asked whether or not she enjoyed good health.
Following her appointment in February 2002, Laird's time at the council was dogged by a series of disputes, particularly with council leader Andrew McKinlay. She was off sick from June 2004 and her employment ended in 2005. She later unsuccessfully pursued separate claims against the council and McKinlay.
Cheltenham Borough Council is suing her for around £1million, which includes the estimated cost of £450,000 for the ill-health pension she was given, £175,000 for the expense of covering for her while she was off sick and £96,000 for costs.
Read more about the case on the Times and the Guardian websites.

[sanityseeker]

This is very sad. I am going for a job interview on Monday and have been worrying what I might say if they ask me any questions about my health record. I left my last job in 2003 because I was experiencing a total breakdown. I opted to quit rather than apply for a medical leave because in the back of my mind I didn't trust that it wouldn't come back to haunt be some day. At least now there is no record. I have been self employed since 2003 but I have been to doctors and therapists so I just hope none of those records need to come forward.

This kind of discrimination is what prevents a lot of people from getting help and accessing benefits they are entitled to get.

[perpetuallysad]

Wow, thanks for sharing that Paddy. Its very distressing to see how our MI can be used against us. There is no way I would ever tell an employer that I'm bipolar (among other things). And now to know that it could be used against me! I guess laws are different in the US than in the UK but there has to be some sort of disabilities act, right? If there is, do you know if it covers MI? Are you required by law to disclose all medical issues when you work somewhere in the UK? But even knowing there is a disabilities act in the US, I have been treated very badly by a former employer (actually by many of the employees there) because I was "different" and ended up being "run off" because they made me so miserable, by law they couldn't fire me because of mental illness, so they made my life unbearable there. To top it off, they completely blackballed me (I worked for a university) and I am not allowed to be employed there ever again.

[rainbow74]

Employers in the UK employers are not supposed to discriminate at all, be that race, gender, sexuality, gender identity or disability, including mental health.

To me it looks like they didn't like her, and trying to get her on a technicality, i mean why would she say she is disabled if she was feeling well when applying for that job?

BTW, she won the case against her .

Originally Posted by perpetuallysad

I have been treated very badly by a former employer (actually by many of the employees there) because I was "different" and ended up being "run off" because they made me so miserable, by law they couldn't fire me because of mental illness, so they made my life unbearable there. To top it off, they completely blackballed me (I worked for a university) and I am not allowed to be employed there ever again.

I'm sorry that this happened to you, i was constructively dismissed myself. It's totally unfair, and makes everything far harder than it needs to be.

[perpetuallysad]

I am so happy to know that she won the case!! Yea!

[possum220]

In order to obtain a permanent job in Aus mean you have to get a medical.
I had a medical at the start of the job, it included my medication and mental history. During my job I was well for the most of the time. I was in a pressured job and finally caved in. I had a nervous breakdown after about 12 years.

Workcover would cover you if you had a physical injury. But by that stage they had just changed the laws and for mental illness you had to go to court to prove your case. Given my state of mind at that stage I was too unwell to go to court. I was told that they would drag up any history I had of mental illness. And they had it on their records.....

So I saved my brain and just left it....... and the job.

[sanityseeker]

Possum.... I am sorry you were faced with that ultimatum. I hope things worked out for you. Another example of discrimination. So not far.

[Miss Laura]

Hey guys,

I am currently off sick been off over all for 3 months and am now off for another month. On doc's orders.

Just wondering if people in the UK even better Scotland can help me. Just wondering if Mental Health is a disability? I have said no on several occassions that I do not have a disability but now I am wondering if I should of said yes??

I am really anxious about filling in an application form as I am just unsure!!

[venusss]

Hmmm... don't you have to have a "paper" (documentation) of a disability? It's not just you can claim it by yourself.

[sanityseeker]

I think the answer is NO as it applies to seeking employment. Here is some information I goggles that is specific to the definition and interpretation of disabled the UK.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/ukpga_19950050_en_3
Great Britian's Disability Discrimination Act 1995 says in part...

Meaning of “disability” and “disabled person”
(1) Subject to the provisions of Schedule 1, a person has a disability for the purposes of this Act if he has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

4 Discrimination against applicants and employees
(1) It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a disabled person—
(a) in the arrangements which he makes for the purpose of determining to whom he should offer employment;
(b) in the terms on which he offers that person employment; or
(c) by refusing to offer, or deliberately not offering, him employment

http://www.diversityandequality.stir.ac.uk/documents/appendix1.pdf
An interpretation fo the Act says in part........

Appendix (i) The Meaning of Disability (Disability Rights Commission, The Duty to Promote Disability Equality, Statutory Code of Practice, Scotland)

When is a person disabled?

A person has a disability if he or she has a physical or mental impairment, which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

What about people who have recovered from a disability?

People who have had a disability within the definition are protected from discrimination even if they have since recovered.

What does ‘impairment’ cover?

It covers physical or mental impairments; this includes sensory impairments, such as those affecting sight or hearing.

Are all mental impairments covered?

The term ‘mental impairment’ is intended to cover a wide range of impairments relating to mental functioning, including what are often known as learning disabilities.

What is a ‘substantial’ adverse effect?

A substantial adverse effect is something which is more than a minor or trivial effect. The requirement that an effect must be substantial reflects the general understanding of disability as a limitation going beyond the normal differences in ability which might exist among people.

What is a ‘long-term’ effect?

A long-term effect of an impairment is one:

• which has lasted at least 12 months, or
• where the total period for which it lasts is likely to be at least 12 months, or
• which is likely to last for the rest of the life of the person affected.

Effects which are not long-term would therefore include loss of mobility due to a broken limb which is likely to heal within 12 months and the effects of temporary infections, from which a person would be likely to recover within 12 months.

What if the effects come and go over a period of time?

If an impairment has had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities but that effect ceases, the substantial effect is treated as continuing if it is likely to recur; that is if it is more probable than not that the effect will recur.

What are ‘normal day-to-day activities’?

They are activities which are carried out by most people on a fairly regular and frequent basis. The term is not intended to include activities which are normal only for a particular person or group of people, such as playing a musical instrument, or a sport, to a professional standard or performing a skilled or specialised task at work. However, someone who is affected in such a specialised way but is also affected in normal day-to-day activities would be covered by this part of the definition. The test of whether an impairment affects normal day-to-day activities is whether it affects one of the broad categories of capacity listed in Schedule 1 to the Act. They are:

• mobility
• manual dexterity
• physical co-ordination
• continence
• ability to lift, carry or otherwise move everyday objects
• speech, hearing or eyesight
• memory or ability to concentrate, learn or understand, or
• perception of the risk of physical danger.
What about treatment?

Someone with an impairment may be receiving medical or other treatment which alleviates or removes the effects (though not the impairment). In such cases, the treatment is ignored and the impairment is taken to have the effect it would have had without such treatment. This does not apply if substantial adverse effects are not likely to recur even if the treatment stops (i.e. the impairment has been cured).
Are there any other people who are automatically treated as disabled under the Act?
Anyone who has HIV infection, cancer or multiple sclerosis is automatically treated as disabled under the Act. In addition, people who are registered as blind or partially sighted, or who are certified as being blind or partially sighted by a consultant ophthalmologist are automatically treated under the Act as being disabled. People who are not registered or certified as blind or partially sighted will be covered by the Act if they can establish that they meet the Act’s definition of disability.
Are any conditions specifically excluded from the coverage of the Act?
Yes. Certain conditions are to be regarded as not amounting to impairments for the purposes of the Act. These are:

• addiction to or dependency on alcohol, nicotine, or any other substance (other than as a result of the substance being medically prescribed)
• seasonal allergic rhinitis (eg hayfever), except where it aggravates the effect of another condition
• tendency to set fires
• tendency to steal
• tendency to physical or sexual abuse of other persons
• exhibitionism
• voyeurism.

Also, disfigurements which consist of a tattoo (which has not been removed), non-medical body piercing, or something attached through such piercing, are to be treated as not having a substantial adverse effect on the person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

To make a long story short... Legislation governing 'persons with disabilities' ensures employers don't discriminate and where reasonable accommodations need to be made for employment to be possible employers are expected to accommodate.

Mental impairment is considered a disablility but if you read the Act, the provisions and interpretations there is no reference to mental illness. At best it is an open question as to whether or not mental illness would be interpreted as a mental impairment.

My suggestion is that you consider the language..... a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. That would be the measurement that you would apply when answering the question of disability and it would need to be confirmed by a doctor.

You may be diagnoised with a metal illness but being classified disabled due to a mental disorder is a different story. It usually applies to those people who are unable to work and will therefore need some form of long term private insurance disability income or public social assistance.

Even if it did qualify as a disability per say the legislation prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability.

This article brings to light the danger of not pre-disclosing a history of mental illness but she won the case. That reinforces my opinion that mental illness is not a disability as defined by most legislations in North America and in Britain.

ps... I thought the list of excluded were too funny. I guess they are avoiding people who engage in criminal activities getting off with arguements of having mental impairments. Still I thought it was funny. lol

[Dave255]

She was likely thinking if she did put down her depression history, she wouldn't have been hired. Of course they would have used a different excuse why she wasn't hired, like under or overqualified.

[splitimage]

I'm glad she won the case, but it really scares me. I have a history of both MI and addiction (alcoholism). I was given the option of resigning my last job, with a decent package due to my drinking, and my current employer was more than decent when I relapsed and had to go back into treatment last summer. But it still scares me. I know that I was shortlisted for several jobs when I was job hunting, and had preliminary phone screening interviews. Whenever I said I left my last job for medical reasons I never got to the inperson interview stage. When I changed my line to "having worked full time since uni. at a high stress job, I decided to take a year off to reconnect with family and friends" I got the interviews.

I had to disclose my depression to my new boss at work now because I need time off work to go to pdoc appointments and in Canada at least that's considered a disability that requires accomodation and legally can't be used as grounds for dissmissal. But nobody at work now knows about my addiction history - the only person who knew about it before was my former boss and she's been fired.

I work flex time to accomodate my addictions treatment program and I know several people in upper management aren't happy about it, so I will if I have to play the disabilities and reasonable accomodations card if I have to as addiction is also considered a disability legally in Canada, but I'm hoping it doesn't go there.

[sanityseeker]

Good luck to you Splitimage with you job and with the work you are doing to overcome addiction. I can appreciate the amount of stress you must be under maintaining any kind of work load while managing an addictions program.

Do you have extended health benefits that covers short and long term disability? It could buy you some time if worse comes to worse and they start gunning for you or it just gets too stressful. I left my job too soon when I could have opted for disability benefits through my health care package at work but I was too afraid of the stigma and too stressed to cope with all the hoops I would have had to jump through with doctors and reports and stuff. I am stubborn that way to my own detriment. It was a huge mistake on my part.

[splitimage]

Sanityseeker, Yes I have both short and long term disability insurance which I'll use if I ever need to. What I'm in now is 2 half day follow up programs a week that are aftercare. When I needed to do full rehab it was an outpatient program that ran 1/2 days 4 days a week, and I worked part time around it. They gave me the option of STD but it's a small company and nobody is trained to backfill my job so it was better for me and the company for me to switch to part time hours for the 10 week period & my boss was very understanding.

If I ever needed to go IP again for MH reasons, I wouldn't hesitate to do it, and would take full advantage of my insurance. That's largely due to the fact that I know my job would be protected due to anti-discrimination legislation.

For now I have a solution, that alright is a little crazy, but it works for me and for the company.

--splitimage

[lonegael]

I told my new boss that I am bipolar. He reacted by thanking me for telling him! It's just that I have such a long commute, and when I get my blood drawn, I have to do it during work hours, because that is when the lab is open. Better come clean about the absences than try to lie about it. Also, there is always the little problem of taking potentially dangerous meds and having no one around know what you are on. If I go toxic and no one at work knows I take Lithium, things could get bad. Sigh.

[sanityseeker]

Splitimage... that doesn't sound crazy to me. It sounds like a very wise and well balanced solution all around. It shows you are committed to your organization and to your health and that should always bode well for you and your employer.

Lonegael... I agree. Honesty is always the best policy. Once you have the job they can't discriminate against you for having bipolar so it is best your employer knows so like you say ifit flares there are no surprises.

I am curious though if either of you did or would have ticked the yes box to the question on an application form that asked if you had a disability.

Even though legislation protects people with mental disorders from discrimination do you consider yourself disabled? I am not sure what I would do. I think it is a very stickly question. I think I would disclose once I secured a job but not sure how I would deal with the question on an application form. I would rather be talking about my mental health issues after I got the job than before. One would have a very difficult time proving discrimination before hiring. Another reason can always be conjured up. Once hired it would be easier to prove discrimination if it presented itself.

[splitimage]

Would I have ticked the box that says I have a disability? That's hard to know. In Canada it's illegal to ask that question during the hiring process. But my answer would probably been no. When I'm not actively depressed, I function fine - and I take meds to keep it that way. to me it's like having high blood pressure, I manage it. As for the addiction - hmm, that's harder. When I got my current job I'd been sober for a year, so I thought it was a thing of the past. I relapsed obviously, and had to go back into treatment, but I'm sober now and so again would probably say no. I could drop out of my after care treatment, and I think i'd stay sober or at least I hope I would.

Just given my experience of not getting interviews when I said I left my last job for medical reasons, my fallback position would be to say no to any disability question - it's too easy to be discriminated against pre hiring, and having them use other reasons.

--splitimage

[lonegael]

No. I do not considered myself disabled as long as I am under the proper care. I have a brand of the disorder that thankfully responds well to medication, and as long as I stick with the plan, I am pretty´"normal" what ever that's supposed to mean.

[sanityseeker]

Thanks Splitimage for your reply. I live in Canada too and I am very grateful the question is not allowed to be asked. It does sound like it is okay in Britain and Australia though.

I think you said it well lonegael... so long as the disorder is being managed then it doesn't seem accurate to consider oneself disabled. Fortunately if it does become an issue and prevent us from working for a period of time, at least in Canada the health insurance will treat it as a disability. I guess that gives us the best of both worlds.

[CyrusTheVirus]

Originally Posted by Miss Laura

Hey guys,

I am currently off sick been off over all for 3 months and am now off for another month. On doc's orders.

Just wondering if people in the UK even better Scotland can help me. Just wondering if Mental Health is a disability? I have said no on several occassions that I do not have a disability but now I am wondering if I should of said yes??

I am really anxious about filling in an application form as I am just unsure!!

Only a court can decide if you are covered by DDA or not, however, your occupational health provider should be able to indicate as to whether they think you would be covered or not. Each case is different, I have been told by Occupational Health that I am 'likely to be covered' therefore my employer treats me as if I am covered. But a colleague was told she was 'unlikely to be covered'.

From memory you don't have to disclose your depression as a disability, if applicable you would still be covered by DDA.

I'm from Scotland too so I'm quite familiar with procedures etc. Feel free to PM if you need to.

[Gabi925]

From U.K....

http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/index.htm
http://www.bullyonline.org/stress/ptsd.htm