Diabetes and discrimination at work

[gasha]

Hi I am new to this forum!

My husband has been Type 1 for 35 years and has never experienced any problems at work managing his Diabetes until now! He joined a water company in East Anglia just over 1 year ago and he made them aware of his condition when he applied.

When he was offered the job he was aware that he would be on a standby rota. He accepted this was part of the role but he was not made aware that it would mean that he would be expected to work in excess of a 12 hour continuous day!. Apart from the long hours envolved he does not always have access to a meal or a suitable environment to test and monitor his blood sugars.

He has also had issues with taking time off to attend diabetic and eye clinic appointments and has been told that the time must be taken out of his 23 days annual holiday allowance.

I was under the impression that Diabetes is classed as disability. The company has made no reasonable adjustments for his condition. Does anyone have any information regarding The Disability Act?

 

[tim2000s]

Having looked into this in the past, I am reasonably comfortable in saying it is not a considered a disability unless you're suffering some of the more debilitating complications.

Companies cannot use you in their disability quota.

 

[logindetails]

Hi @gasha and welcome to the forum. Diabetes itself is not classed as a disability but as @tim2000s says some diabetic complications are. You're husband is being treated the same as his fellow employees so there is no discrimination. It would be nice if his employer gave him additional paid time off to attend clinics but they don't have to. Clinics - I attend 6 a year + 2 eye screenings which is more than most people - they only last a couple of hours each but effectively use up half my working day. Could your husband arrange to work half days when his clinics are due, with the half day he is not in work being taken from his annual leave? - that would leave him a couple more whole day holidays to spend with you

 

[CarbsRok]

Hi I am new to this forum!

My husband has been Type 1 for 35 years and has never experienced any problems at work managing his Diabetes until now! He joined a water company in East Anglia just over 1 year ago and he made them aware of his condition when he applied.

When he was offered the job he was aware that he would be on a standby rota. He accepted this was part of the role but he was not made aware that it would mean that he would be expected to work in excess of a 12 hour continuous day!. Apart from the long hours envolved he does not always have access to a meal or a suitable environment to test and monitor his blood sugars.

He has also had issues with taking time off to attend diabetic and eye clinic appointments and has been told that the time must be taken out of his 23 days annual holiday allowance.

I was under the impression that Diabetes is classed as disability. The company has made no reasonable adjustments for his condition. Does anyone have any information regarding The Disability Act?

The company has to make reasonable adjustment for your husband but that does not include paying him for time away from his job for hospital appointments and eye screening.
Personally I wouldn't even expect someone to pay me for a hospital apt. Is it not illegal to work a 12 hour shift without a break? I can not see any reason why diabetes can not be managed whilst working long hours, blood tests can be managed on the move. ( I know as used to work 16 hours a day)

 

[AndBreathe]

My understanding is that an employer must give the employee time off too attend diabetic appointments, but they are not compelled to pay the employee for that time.

I would suggest your husband consult his union, if he is a member of one, or gives ACAS a quick call for guidance if he isn't.

 

[izzzi]

Hi, Gasha. this may help. use this link for any help and advice.
Home | Acas
I also read this somewhere.
"Is diabetes termed a disability within
the meaning of the Equality Act?
The definition of disability in the Equality Act treats
each person as an individual, so ultimately only a
court or tribunal can decide if a person is covered
by the definition. Many people with diabetes do
not think of themselves as having a disability, but in
many cases people with diabetes will be covered by
this definition of disability. This is because diabetes
is a life-long condition, and it can seriously affect
a person’s ability to do normal day-to-day things.
When you are considering whether you are covered
by the definition you must think about the effect of
your diabetes on your day-to-day life. If your diabetes
makes it more difficult for you to do day-to-day things
then you are likely to be covered."

Best of luck

 

[donnellysdogs]

Or if you have legal help with your household insurance, they also offer legal advice for employment...

 

[Kat100]

Of course the duty of care towards your husband may apply ...
Maybe HR could be helpful ....just a thought ...

 

[noblehead]

Not sticking up for the company, but your husband would have been aware of the job description when he took the job on, a company doesn't (as far as I'm aware) need to provide access to meals, there's nothing stopping him from taking a packed lunch if there is no access to a canteen/ restaurant or any shops close by where food can be obtained.

As for injecting and testing, without knowing what the job entails it's difficult to comment, but you can inject and test your bg almost anywhere providing your hands are clean.I think most of us long-term type 1's have worked 12 hour shifts at some time, although it can make diabetes control difficult it's not impossible to overcome these problems working long hours.

With regards to appointments, the employer has to make reasonable adjustments to allow employees to attend medical appointments but there's no obligation on them to pay for this time away from work, some employers will pay for this time or allow staff to make the time up, as where some (as in your husbands case) want staff to take this time off as part of their holiday entitlements, it sucks but some employers are like that.

 

[mooshk]

I'm registered as disabled with type 1 for 20 years, maybe ask his GP about the how to prove disability? It affects every day life and health, definitely a disability.

 

[tim2000s]

Coming back to whether diabetes is a disability is really a decision that your husband has to make.

For me, from my point of view, it doesn't stop me from doing anything (really) that a person without diabetes can do. I wouldn't register myself disabled as I don't consider myself to be disabled.

It sounds as though your husband has a physically demanding job that perhaps the company would not employ a physically disabled person to do. You have to ask yourself whether he actually is disabled and if that is a label he wants to apply. For me, and this may seem harsh, while I am in good health and capable physically, it seems like a "victim" stamp that I'm not willing to make, even if it does mean getting jobs and promotions becomes easier due to positive discrimination.

 

[Flakey Bake]

My understanding is that diabetes is a registered disability. Disability is defined by your "everyday" condition but also by what your condition would be if medication was withdrawn. Although diabetes is a registered disability, any benefits are means tested (as with all disabilities). My personal understanding is that time off should be granted to attend essential medical appointments. I work for a very good employer who also pays me for time off, but I guess that is not the case for everyone. I would see what someone with a human resources or Union would say on the matter of paid time.
I don't think the label of disabled is a matter of choice, but how you deal with it and think about it is.

 

[logindetails]

I'm registered as disabled with type 1 for 20 years, maybe ask his GP about the how to prove disability? It affects every day life and health, definitely a disability.

I assume you must have diabetic complications if not you've slipped through the net so I'd keep it quiet if I were you

 

[tim2000s]

I've just had a quick read of the disability discrimination act (thanks @Flakey Bake).

I'd say that flakes is correct, and that we are slightly misinformed about what is considered disabled for the purposes of the act however you would have to claim that he was being discriminated against because of his condition rather than saying that allowances weren't being made for it to really start working out what could be done.

 

[logindetails]

From: Disability Discrimination Act 1995

1 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.
.....

From SCHEDULE 1 Provisions Supplementing Section 1

Normal day-to-day activities

4(1)An impairment is to be taken to affect the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal day-to-day activities only if it affects one of the following—
(a)mobility;

(b)manual dexterity;

(c)physical co-ordination;

(d)continence;

(e)ability to lift, carry or otherwise move everyday objects;

(f)speech, hearing or eyesight;

(g)memory or ability to concentrate, learn or understand; or

(h)perception of the risk of physical danger

 

[tim2000s]

Below I have taken an Excerpt from the Equality Act Guidance published by the UK government. On the basis of this, Diabetes could be considered to be a disability. (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ent_data/file/85010/disability-definition.pdf)

Whether you want to treat it as such is up to you. The key point is that if you feel that discrimination is taking place due to diabetes, it looks as though it is a viable argument to invoke the equality act.

Effects of treatment
B12. The Act provides that, where an impairment is subject to treatment
or correction, the impairment is to be treated as having a substantial
adverse effect if, but for the treatment or correction, the impairment is
likely to have that effect. In this context, ‘likely’ should be interpreted
as meaning ‘could well happen’. The practical effect of this provision
is that the impairment should be treated as having the effect that
it would have without the measures in question (Sch1, Para 5(1)).
The Act states that the treatment or correction measures which are
to be disregarded for these purposes include, in particular, medical
treatment and the use of a prosthesis or other aid (Sch1, Para 5(2)).
In this context, medical treatments would include treatments such
as counselling, the need to follow a particular diet, and therapies,
in addition to treatments with drugs. (See also paragraphs B7 and
B16.)

B13. This provision applies even if the measures result in the effects being
completely under control or not at all apparent. Where treatment is
continuing it may be having the effect of masking or ameliorating
a disability so that it does not have a substantial adverse effect. If
the final outcome of such treatment cannot be determined, or if it is
known that removal of the medical treatment would result in either a
relapse or a worsened condition, it would be reasonable to disregard
the medical treatment in accordance with paragraph 5 of Schedule 1.

B14. For example, if a person with a hearing impairment wears a hearing
aid the question as to whether his or her impairment has a substantial
adverse effect is to be decided by reference to what the hearing level
would be without the hearing aid. Similarly, in the case of someone
with diabetes which is being controlled by medication or diet should
be decided by reference to what the effects of the condition would be
if he or she were not taking that medication or following the required
diet.

 

[AndyOD]

Fundamentally this comes down to does one want to be treated differently ?

Not that many people on this forum would (I believe) want to be for want of a better word 'favoured' because of their condition.

If it is about being treated fairly I would say that it is ok to say if I go to an appointment when it suits and do it in my own time.

If as you say your husband is expected to work 12 hours per day, does he work 5 days a week?

This is against the working time directive. If not as I suspect then he should arrange appointments in his off days.

 

[Flakey Bake]

My personal work and diabetes policy is fight the good fight when it really matters. Otherwise keep your head down and don't make a fuss if it something you can live with. The workplace can be a brutally cruel place to those of us who need a bit more support. A pretty sad state of affairs thanks to the erosion of union strength.

 

[mooshk]

If your hypo's include fitting, loss of coordination, dizziness, loss of concentration and affect you for long after you've had them (including the inability to walk for a few hours-happens to me sometimes) then yes, this counts as a disability.

 

[mooshk]

If your hypo's include fitting, loss of coordination, dizziness, loss of concentration and affect you for long after you've had them (including the inability to walk for a few hours-happens to me sometimes) then yes, this counts as a disability.

At work (I work at a hospital) we consider type 1 diabetics as having a disability also