Is this discriminatory? Job and driving requirement

Mygardenandme · 2025-10-07T06:24:20+00:00

Civil service job. Offices throughout England and Wales. HEO. Office based but can be based at any office. 99% of travel in our dept is done by train and you are strongly discouraged from driving. Although you have to justify any travel at all. I spoke with the person doing the job atm and it involves lots of meetings with people from all the offices from AA to SEO. There are some external meetings but they are on Teams or very rarely in a central location. All the meetings are planned in advance. The current (small) project team has staff throughout England so most meetings are on Teams. When they do rarely meet face to face, most travel by train. Im not in an office where any of them are based. So clearly there is a need for travel. Although not as much as first implied and generally done by train. The job advert states that a driving license is ^essential^. I have epilepsy so no driving license. I'm going to speak with the team leader to see if I can still apply. If not, I'm not going to do anything about it. It's quite a visible team and I like working in the dept so dont want to get reputation. YANBU - A driving license might be preferred but as long as someone is willing to travel by train, there is no reason they cant do the job. It is disability discrimination. YABU - The job might be mainly Teams based but there is enough travel to make relying on public transport too risky. It's not disability discrimination because they can justify the driving license requirement.

OMGitsnotgood · 10/10/2025 19:34

@Bjorkdidit they absolutely are reasonable adjustments if that is what is needed. But yes so are lining up appointments someone can travel by public transport IF they are able.But is case specific What is reasonable depends on the individual’s needs and what is reasonable to expect from the particular organisation they work for.

Bjorkdidit · 10/10/2025 18:22

I wouldn't say that a full time driver or significantly less work than everyone else are reasonable adjustments.

Reasonable adjustments are having appointments lined up with public transport, doing the ones that work better with it anyway, such as city centre. Or starting an in person meeting in the afternoon so people can get there and back by public transport on the same day.

OMGitsnotgood · 10/10/2025 18:09

Yes, reasonable is a key word. It’s a tricky one because what is ‚reasonable’ is onlunever defined by a court when it gets that far. Although those used to making adjustments will have a good idea. So it you can’t visit people because even with a driver you couldn’t get out of the car and into someone‘s home, then possibly the provision of adjustments might be too great. If you need to get to some out of the way places, can’t drive but otherwise can do the role then that’s a different matter. Your employer has a legal obligation to make these adjustments and what might seem like an expensive adjusment to you, if reasonable is a hell of a lot cheaper than a tribunal payout

Original poster

Mygardenandme · 10/10/2025 16:02

Bushmillsbabe · 10/10/2025 14:28

It's not discriminatory if the job cannot be done without it, it's all about reasonable adjustments. If there is a way that the job can be done as effectively without driving then yes it would be discriminatory to make it essential.
We are also a commuinity nhs, but in London,so it is possible to get around without driving, if anything it's sometimes easier as parking in some areas is really hard. So for us to say driving is essential would be discriminatory. But it doesn't sound like it's discriminatory for your team. However you would have to have options available such as pool cars for those who cannot afford to buy a car. One locum role bought me a car as I didn't have one!

Show quote history

The key word is REASONABLE.

It is not reasonable to adjust the job so much that it's a completely different job eg if 90% of a health visitors role is visiting people but they cant, they cant expect the employer to say "never mind, we'll just get rid of that bit of the job". As I said earlier, a reasonable adjustment might be ensuring they only work in areas with good public transport instead of somewhere rural.

It also has to be reasonable in terms of cost. If I had to drive everyday, there is no way the CS could justify paying a driver for me. It's not reasonable for them to employ another member of staff for me to do an essential part of my job. It is reasonable for them to say "you need to be at a 9o'clock meeting half way accross the country once a month so we'll pay for a hotel the night before".

OP posts:

Jamesblonde2 · 10/10/2025 14:35

Just apply for a job that suits your life. That’s what most people do.

Bushmillsbabe · 10/10/2025 14:28

Spartak · 07/10/2025 07:29

I work in a community team in the NHS in a rural area where public transport is crap.

We've had to remove the driving licence requirement from job adverts as HR advises that is discriminatory. It's pretty much impossible to do the job without being able to drive.

It's not discriminatory if the job cannot be done without it, it's all about reasonable adjustments. If there is a way that the job can be done as effectively without driving then yes it would be discriminatory to make it essential.
We are also a commuinity nhs, but in London,so it is possible to get around without driving, if anything it's sometimes easier as parking in some areas is really hard. So for us to say driving is essential would be discriminatory. But it doesn't sound like it's discriminatory for your team. However you would have to have options available such as pool cars for those who cannot afford to buy a car. One locum role bought me a car as I didn't have one!

OMGitsnotgood · 10/10/2025 14:19

Mygardenandme · 10/10/2025 14:11

But then sometimes that just isnt possible/practical. Like with the NHS example above, driving is so integral to the role that not driving means you just cant do it. There are no "reasonable adjustments" that can be made.

I couldn't be a health visitor because I cant travel between locations effectively. Work cant give me less appointments in a day (discriminating against staff with driving licences) or pay for taxis for me.

A reasonable adjustment might be giving me a "patch" that is busable or if everyone in the team has 5 appointments a week that they normally so in 2 days, they may say I can do 1 appointment a day. Or stagger the appointments based on bus timetables etc.

Edited

Show quote history

There ARE adjustments that can be made: providing a driver or a taxis are valid adjustments. We had a blind sales rep who had a driver. They can also give you fewer visits a day. The disability discrimination legislation in the Equality Act is asymmetric - ie it only covers those with disabilities, not without (unlike other areas of that legislation which covers everyone). So not discriminating against your non-disabled colleagues.

I’m a bit out of touch now but Access to Work used to help pay for things like this - worth checking if they still do.

DiscoBob · 10/10/2025 14:17

A driving license clearly isn't essential. Either driving, not just travelling, but driving specifically is part of your job or it isn't. And it isn't.

So delivery drivers, taxi drivers, bus drivers, most estate agents, breakdown rescue, country vets etc all do actually have to drive. Otherwise it's either completely irrelevant or just nice to have.

I'd imagine they would waive it or change it as it seems pointless as a criteria.

Original poster

Mygardenandme · 10/10/2025 14:11

OMGitsnotgood · 10/10/2025 09:53

They are within their rights to require a driving licence for people who are able to have one. For those who cannot drive due to a disability, they need to make a reasonable adjustment (driver, pay for taxis, or only ask that person to travel to places they can safely reach by public transport).

But then sometimes that just isnt possible/practical. Like with the NHS example above, driving is so integral to the role that not driving means you just cant do it. There are no "reasonable adjustments" that can be made.

I couldn't be a health visitor because I cant travel between locations effectively. Work cant give me less appointments in a day (discriminating against staff with driving licences) or pay for taxis for me.

A reasonable adjustment might be giving me a "patch" that is busable or if everyone in the team has 5 appointments a week that they normally so in 2 days, they may say I can do 1 appointment a day. Or stagger the appointments based on bus timetables etc.

OP posts:

Original poster

Mygardenandme · 10/10/2025 14:06

Bjorkdidit · 10/10/2025 09:46

In the civil service they will supply a pool or hire car. Own car use is generally frowned upon. But it sounds like there's not a lot of travel and it's doable by train, which isn't always the case, eg needing to take lots of equipment, visit multple sites in a day or go to places that are not easily accessible by public transport.

But good luck OP. They've probably found that recruitment and retention is tricky because pay will be poor for the role and/or it's not a cosy regular hours flexible office job with lots of WFH that people seem to (wrongly) assume is ubiquitous in the Civil Service.

Show quote history

Oh yes, the role in the private sector would pay significantly more than HEO wage.

I dont really WFH. Reluctantly I have to admit I am less distracted in the office. Plus, regardless of how hard I work, some of my work doesnt create much countable output iyswim. At least if Im in the office reading a printed document and my computer is "off", everyone can see that I am working. If I was at home, there would be no proof of that.

OP posts:

OMGitsnotgood · 10/10/2025 09:53

They are within their rights to require a driving licence for people who are able to have one. For those who cannot drive due to a disability, they need to make a reasonable adjustment (driver, pay for taxis, or only ask that person to travel to places they can safely reach by public transport).

Bjorkdidit · 10/10/2025 09:46

Myalternate · 10/10/2025 09:12

I would imagine that having a DL would be less costly when reimbursing travel expenses. Would they supply a company vehicle or expect an employee use their own?

In the civil service they will supply a pool or hire car. Own car use is generally frowned upon. But it sounds like there's not a lot of travel and it's doable by train, which isn't always the case, eg needing to take lots of equipment, visit multple sites in a day or go to places that are not easily accessible by public transport.

But good luck OP. They've probably found that recruitment and retention is tricky because pay will be poor for the role and/or it's not a cosy regular hours flexible office job with lots of WFH that people seem to (wrongly) assume is ubiquitous in the Civil Service.

Myalternate · 10/10/2025 09:12

I would imagine that having a DL would be less costly when reimbursing travel expenses. Would they supply a company vehicle or expect an employee use their own?

tripleginandtonic · 10/10/2025 08:42

Spartak · 07/10/2025 07:29

I work in a community team in the NHS in a rural area where public transport is crap.

We've had to remove the driving licence requirement from job adverts as HR advises that is discriminatory. It's pretty much impossible to do the job without being able to drive.

So HR have got that wrong then.

Original poster

Mygardenandme · 10/10/2025 08:22

I spoke to the lead. Apparently he'd prefer drivers because of the flexibility but not driving doesnt exclude me.

He said that there are early starts so as long as I am willing to catch the earliest train or stay the night before it isnt an issue. He did say that obviously the overnight stays need approval so I will need take that onto account however the team wont have an issue making eg morning meetings into afternoon so I can get there.

What I really liked though was that he was very honest about a few less positive aspects of the job. When Ive spoken to people about jobs before they've skimmed over the bad bits but he was very open and said he wanted me to know what the reality was. It was pretty much what I assumed.

So Ill be applying. Wish me luck!

OP posts:

Merkins · 07/10/2025 14:16

Knowing the CS recruitment process as well as I do, I would be 99% sure that someone has selected ‘yes’ to ‘Do applicants require a DL?’ without giving it much thought. If you ask the lead then they probably won’t even have realised it’s on there!
Definitely speak to them and find out why it says you need a DL. Unless it requires frequent travel to somewhere 50 miles from the nearest station they will be able to make it work.

Most definitely do not assume discrimination and not apply, it is far more likely to be incompetence 😂

Original poster

Mygardenandme · 07/10/2025 13:57

ShesTheAlbatross · 07/10/2025 07:56

I think that, given the travel and the preference for trains, it would be unreasonable of them to insist on a driving license.

My DH can’t drive for medical reasons, and obviously there are jobs he can’t do. Anything that involved travelling to lots of different customers/clients homes for example (for example, we had a British gas engineer at our house yesterday - that travel cannot be done on public transport because there’s a van full of tools and you’re going all over the place). But this job doesn’t seem like one he should be excluded from.

Completely. There are certain jobs I know I cant do. I'd love to work for the environment agency or there is a local nature reserve that would be my dream job but I just cant do it.

OP posts:

Original poster

Mygardenandme · 07/10/2025 13:54

Spartak · 07/10/2025 07:29

I work in a community team in the NHS in a rural area where public transport is crap.

We've had to remove the driving licence requirement from job adverts as HR advises that is discriminatory. It's pretty much impossible to do the job without being able to drive.

I used to work for the police (not a police officer) and there was a restructure and my job wasnt in the new structure. They didnt want to pay me redundancy so tried to make me take a job that involved regular travel in a very rural location (ie no reluable public transport). They said if I didnt take it, I would be "making myself redundant" and wouldnt get redundancy. They knew I wouldnt be able to do the new job. They were basically trying to make me take that job and then be able to sack me because I couldnt do it.

I got ACAS involved and started tribunal proceedings against them. We settled before it went to court. The irony is, I was originally quite happy to take redundancy but they ended up paying me 10x what my redundancy payment would have been.

I didnt push the discrimination aspect because I felt like I would have had to get a lawyer. I'm convinced I would have won more if I had.

Twats. 🤣

OP posts:

Hibernatingtilspring · 07/10/2025 08:33

I certainly think it's worth discussing. I'm in social work where having a driving licence used to be an essential criteria, and I've always known adjustments made for those who couldn't drive for medical reasons despite it not being a very practical job for reasonable adjustments (due to things like unexpected trips and going to places not covered by public transport)

In the last few years all councils I've worked at have removed the criteria, it's said to be to avoid discrimination - in particular we struggled to recruit graduates who had been unable to get lessons or driving tests with the covid backlog - though I believe it's more to do with local authorities signing up to be 'green' councils and because it means they don't have to provide any parking.

Original poster

Mygardenandme · 07/10/2025 08:02

lljkk · 07/10/2025 07:46

Just apply for the job & argue why you know you can manage the travel requirements.
You'll tag yourself as annoying prospective employee if you insist on challenging this on discrimination grounds when you're not even in post and haven't even applied.

FWIW, I applied for a job that implied "driving license required" and then found out the guy I was replacing got everywhere by bus. I ended up cycling to most our meetings that were away from office site.

I've already said I'm not going down the discrimination route even if I had grounds (which it sounds like I do).

Surely I'd be more annoying if I wasted everyone's time by getting the job and then there turning out to be an actual reason why a driving license was essential meaning I cant do it? Or, it will come up and it will reflect poorly on me for not being honest.

Also, by speaking with the lead I will get a feel about how supportive he will be about travel arrangements. Just because everyone else uses the train, it doesnt mean he is happy about it.

OP posts:

ShesTheAlbatross · 07/10/2025 07:56

I think that, given the travel and the preference for trains, it would be unreasonable of them to insist on a driving license.

My DH can’t drive for medical reasons, and obviously there are jobs he can’t do. Anything that involved travelling to lots of different customers/clients homes for example (for example, we had a British gas engineer at our house yesterday - that travel cannot be done on public transport because there’s a van full of tools and you’re going all over the place). But this job doesn’t seem like one he should be excluded from.

Mt563 · 07/10/2025 07:51

No driving license as a reasonable adjustment for your epilepsy sound fair, especially given the current travel arrangements.

Theraperaperapy · 07/10/2025 07:50

In my NHS dept we say you must be able to meet the travel requirements for the job.

Some people with disabilities may be eligible for funding towards a driver or taxis through Access to work.
So we don’t discriminate but an employee must be able to travel somehow

StrongLikeMamma · 07/10/2025 07:47

Spartak · 07/10/2025 07:29

I work in a community team in the NHS in a rural area where public transport is crap.

We've had to remove the driving licence requirement from job adverts as HR advises that is discriminatory. It's pretty much impossible to do the job without being able to drive.

How ridiculous

HermioneWeasley · 07/10/2025 07:46

OP nobody on here can give you an answer. You’ll need to speak to them to see whether the meetings not accessible by public transport can be done in another way - you in a taxi, you via Teams or someone else goes.