Regarding disabled parking

Yes someone getting to the toilet before you is life , it happens. Someone waiting till they see need to go then taking advantage of your disability so they can go before you is someone is not "just life". And I'm yet to see what Sue can do to take responsibility and avoid it?

You honestly don't think this insinuates that Sue is being unreasonable?

Maybe it's a good excuse to not have to do work for a bit.

I didn't say Sue was unreasonable. I told you giving Lynda the heads-up is one solution and what I would do in that situation. I also didn't say Sue is "acting like a child". I said they are both grown women and it is their responsibility to sort this out between them. Which neither are showing any interest in doing.

Someone getting to the toilet before you is just life. Just like when someone else takes the last vegan sandwich before you do (IYKYK). It's annoying, but it is not wrong.

Maybe they should consider moving Lynda's desk so she can't see when Sue is going to the toilet.

Sue isn't "acting like a child" though is she? She just wants to go to the toilet but "almost every time" Lynda makes her wait because she doesn't want to possibly wait herself. Never said it's anything to do with the employer . I take issue with you post earlier insinuating Sue is being unreasonable in not announcing her impending trip to the toilet to her colleague so said colleague has the option of making her wait. What can Sue do for a solution? If she does what you suggest then she is still at the mercy of Lynda prioritising herself . With her disabilities, even she goes to go to the toilet first Lynda is always going to be able to beat her, which is exactly what is happening. Do you know how mad it would be to explain to someone else,
"I have to go tell my colleague if I need the toilet just in case she wants to first, otherwise she'll wait till she sees me going and she'll get there before me"

People aren’t not inviting her because of her disability, she’s not being invited because she’s a selfish twat who doesn’t give a shit about another disabled person and is making their life more difficult daily. She’s using her disability as an excuse which is also shitty behaviour! And if she comes in earlier then why does she want to park around the corner so no one can see her times?

if Sue doesn't want to have to wait, she can give Lynda a heads-up beforehand so Lynda can get hers out of the way.

Isn't that exactly what's happening now? Sue always has to wait for Lynda, so she sets off with fifteen minutes to spare.

For an abrasive Daily Mail reader, Sue seems rather forbearing.

Neither do I! Remember Lyndas highly observed loo habits are being reported by Ops 'reliable informants'...

You're also assuming Lynda only uses the toilet those times Sue needs it. We don't know that those are the only times she uses it.

Because these are two grown women acting like dicks. There is an accessible toilet available as required. There is no requirement that it must be immediately available when needed. It is not the responsibility of the employer or the owner to sort out who goes where and when. They are not children who need mummy to tell them when to go to the toilet. Until they work together on a solution, it will continue to be whoever gets there second will have to wait. Neither Lynda nor Sue take priority.

I don't think Lynda is specifically sitting there going "ooo I need the loo but I'll hang on until Sue needs it"...

Why are you ignoring the fact that Lynda is the only one that waits till the other needs to go. Sue can't be "doing what suits herself" as when she wants to go the the toilet Lynda makes her wait. There will be rare occasions when both need at the same time , and one will have to wait , that happens with normal toilets aswell. The difference is Lynda is waiting till Sue needs to go . It's not equal. Why is it only Sue that has to announce her toilet schedule? The OP stated that Lynda takes quite a while aswell. What is the point in Sue warning Lynda ? She will have to wait anyway? Why does lyndas need take preference over Sues?

Warnings can be given to the organisers if they continue to leave Lynda out. Or boss could simply stop employees being allowed out to do coffee runs and take over organising lunches etc

They absolutely can step in if out of work problems are spilling into working hours

Sue doesn't care if Lynda needs it either. Neither of these women care about each other. They're equally doing what suits themselves. But only Lynda is getting bullied for it because she's not as pitiful as Sue in everyone else's eyes.

How can Lynda "just go when she needs" if the toilet is occupied? I've already said what my solution would be. Knowing that it is a shared loo, if Sue doesn't want to have to wait, she can give Lynda a heads-up beforehand so Lynda can get hers out of the way. This way both women get to use it without waiting.

Not true. If Lynda is being specifically excluded from social events involving other members of the workplace, that’s a problem too. Lynda has protected characteristics as a disabled person and exclusion to this degree could be seen as preventing Lynda from taking part in socialisation that is team building and benefiting those taking part. That’s discrimination and puts the employer on very dodgy ground if they don’t intervene.

Presumably that's the only thing the company super inclusive and amazing boss can do.
Once that email has been seen by everyone and still Lynda is being excluded, theres nothing else to be done.
You cannot make people socialise with those they do not like. That in itself would be bullying. You also cannot do anything about outside of work hours socialising. Out of work hours is not your remit.

And inside work hours if they have a brain, they will just do solo coffee runs, and never eat together or have cake mornings or whatever ( can you tell I dont work in an office) still leaving Lynda excluded.

Informing them that she has a BB isn’t the same as notifying her condition. Employers are actually not allowed to enquire as to the nature of someone’s disability. The decision to disclose is entirely that of the employee, and during my time as a disabilty support worker I’ve come across many disabled people who don’t want to disclose because they fear they will be treated differently. They will give minimum information, such as needing a BB space, or to park nearer the entrance, but won’t disclose why. I’ve also come across many who are in difficult situations and won’t disclose even though it would be to their advantage. It leaves the employer hamstrung because they’re not in possession of all the facts so can only provide limited solutions based on what they know.

Yes but she waits until she knows someone else needs to, and makes that person wait. You say if she doesn't go then she might have to wait and might not make, but she's doing that to Sue, but somehow you think Sue is the unreasonable one?
It doesn't belong to Sue you are right. But Sue isn't waiting till Lynda needs it and making her wait. Sue hasn't said she wants it to herself, she just doesn't want someone deliberately waiting till she needs. What's your solution? They both wait till the other needs then race to get there first ? How about Lynda just goes when she needs like Sue has to ?

Yep, this. Just because you’re disabled doesn’t mean you can’t be a dick. And I say that as a disabled person myself. It sounds to me as though there’s a bit of dickery on both sides and it really should be nipped in the bud so that actual need can be determined rather than personal preference.

Dear Colleagues

It has come to our attention that members of staff are feeling excluded from in office coffee runs and lunches. We understand and accept you will form friendships at work and may wish to socialise outside of working hours but please ensure anything organised within working hours doesn't exclude only one or two members of staff

Sincerely
Your Super Inclusive and Amazing Boss

The bullying allegation is serious and was dismissed too readily. Management absolutely can step in if employee behaviour is affecting a member of staff and making them feel excluded. Especially when those "Social" events are withint working hours

I don’t think Lynda is being excluded specifically because of the parking issues - although other staff have had to step in and help Sue because of Lynda’s actions. I think the exclusion may be from the first hand witnessing by other staff of actions they perceive as deliberately making life more difficult for Sue, and possibly influenced by the fact that Sue is wheelchair bound and Lynda is not.

While that may seem unfair, the fact that Sue has an adapted vehicle specifically for her wheelchair, and that it’s a motorised wheelchair, does suggest a higher level of disability and therefore a higher level of need in some respects, than Lynda. If Lynda is perceived as not being mindful of Sue’s needs and accommodating them where possible, then unsurprisingly, that’s where the bad feeling has arisen.

Management can’t fix the bad feeling but they have a duty to ensure that that bad feeling doesn’t affect the working environment - including social activities outside the workplace if she is being deliberately excluded. And it sounds very much as though this is what’s happening - the fact that it’s likely as a result of Lynda’s own actions is irrelevant. As a disabled person, Lynda has protected characteristics and the actions of the other staff could well be defined as bullying, harassment or victimisation within the Equality Act, so it needs to be stopped and Lynda needs to be included as part of the team to avoid a grievance for which she may well have grounds.

These are lunches and coffee runs within the office

And if you are deliberately leaving ONE member of staff out of everything then, yes, it is bullying

A couple of you going for a drink, fine, everyone bar the one member of staff you all gossip about, bullying

How can management fix that though?

You cannot force people to be sociable and if you tried to force lyndas inclusion you might equally get the others backs up and complaining about bullying by being made to be nice to a person they dont like, for whatever reason.

It would likely be a ton easier to sort out the parking spaces than get into bullying allegations.

From the OP’s description my experience based guess is that Sue drives a wheelchair accessible vehicle. That means the drivers seat has been removed and she drives from her wheelchair. To get in and out in the wheelchair, the ramps would likely be at the rear of the vehicle, meaning that she needs more space to enter and exit the vehicle and to manoeuvre the wheelchair, which sounds quite big and bulky. Most standard disabled spaces would accommodate this, but the one in question is easier for Sue to use because there is no other adjacent parking space there, so there is more room to manoeuvre.

Sue’s choices haven’t created this situation any more than Lynda’s have - the vehicle she drives meets her needs, so it’s not really a choice but a necessity. The issue with the toilet situation seems to suggest that Lynda is indeed a twat because she seems to lie in wait for Sue to show signs of wanting to use the loo before nipping in ahead of her. So it could well be that she’s using the parking space to create more difficulty for Sue because of whatever bad feeling there is between them. That’s something that a needs assessment would sort out.

If Lynda is easily able to use the standard loos when Sue occupies the accessible one, then that’s what she should do. Yes, she’s just as entitled to use the accessible one, but if Sue is limited to the accessible loo because the standard ones won’t accommodate her wheelchair or other needs, then her need is greater. Same with the parking space. If Lynda genuinely needs that space because of disability related issues not solved by the alternative available space, then fair enough. If not, again, Sue’s needs are greater. Nothing to do with who is more disabled or more ‘deserving’ but a simple matter of need over personal choice.

That’s what ‘reasonable adjustment’ means. ‘Reasonable’ applies just as much to the employees’ behaviour towards each other as it does to the employers’ responsibility to ensure equal treatment. Lots of posters overlooking that in their rush to defend Lynda, when it’s fairly obvious to those of us who have worked in the field of disability support, that if Lynda is independently mobile and can’t demonstrate a disability related reason for using the larger space, other than personal preference, then in the context of the parking space Sue’s needs are greater because she has to rely on a motorised wheelchair and a ramp from a wheelchair adapted vehicle - suggesting a high level of disability and resulting need. The Equality Act doesn’t play ‘disability top trumps’ - it doesn’t consider the disability directly, but rather the level of need that arises from it.