Tweet
Employed for 22 months (England), so just shy of the two year point for unfair dismissal, but claiming automatic unfair dismissal among other claims as the dismissal came partly from my raising a grievance about disability discrimination. Another of the claims is failure to provide reasonable accommodations, because I repeatedly requested ADHD awareness training for the team, due to a lack of tolerance and patience for me by someone, and then a lack of support by my manager. There was gossip about me 'hiding behind ADHD as an excuse', implications I was 'selfish' for not better managing my attention symptoms with it, claims of me 'going off on a tangent', and much more. I felt the people around me didn't understand ADHD, and hoped they would learn a bit about it, which would have helped the situation.
Today however, I received an email from the respondent's representative, stating the following:
"The definition of disability is set out in Section 6(1) of the Equality Act 2010.
6 Disability
(1) A person (P) has a disability if—
(a) P has a physical or mental impairment, and
(b) the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on P's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
In order to satisfy the definition of disability, a condition has to meet each part of the test.
The Respondent accepts that you have ADHD, that it is a mental impairment and that it is long-term. Based on the information and documentation you have provided to the Tribunal, the Respondent does not accept that it has a substantial adverse effect on your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
The Respondent, therefore, does not accept that your condition is a disability as defined in the Equality Act 2010."
I supplied my diagnosis, a letter from my psychiatrist saying my experiences there are unfortunately common for people with ADHD, and a list of ways it impacted me at work. So my question is this...
Does this very email not demonstrate the point I am trying to make, that they clearly do not understand ADHD and need training on it, for them to even consider it not affecting a person's day-to-day activities at work? Surely this shows their lack of awareness, and how they obviously don't take ADHD seriously, and assumed I didn't therefore need support, etc... despite the challenges I had there.
Today however, I received an email from the respondent's representative, stating the following:
"The definition of disability is set out in Section 6(1) of the Equality Act 2010.
6 Disability
(1) A person (P) has a disability if—
(a) P has a physical or mental impairment, and
(b) the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on P's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
In order to satisfy the definition of disability, a condition has to meet each part of the test.
The Respondent accepts that you have ADHD, that it is a mental impairment and that it is long-term. Based on the information and documentation you have provided to the Tribunal, the Respondent does not accept that it has a substantial adverse effect on your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
The Respondent, therefore, does not accept that your condition is a disability as defined in the Equality Act 2010."
I supplied my diagnosis, a letter from my psychiatrist saying my experiences there are unfortunately common for people with ADHD, and a list of ways it impacted me at work. So my question is this...
Does this very email not demonstrate the point I am trying to make, that they clearly do not understand ADHD and need training on it, for them to even consider it not affecting a person's day-to-day activities at work? Surely this shows their lack of awareness, and how they obviously don't take ADHD seriously, and assumed I didn't therefore need support, etc... despite the challenges I had there.
Comment