Hired a disabled woman in lockdown who I now have to fire

[Whatnextteletext]

During the first lockdown I hired a physically disabled woman into an entry level role on my team. She’s in her mid 30’s but it’s her first job because pre-pandemic, she couldn’t work out of the home due to her disability and work from home opportunities were few and far between. She is a wheelchair user who lives with a full time carer who takes care of he personal needs (this is relevant to why she couldn’t work out of home) and prior to lockdown, she lived on her disability payments alone which from the sound of it was very hard going.

I hired her into an entry level web development role with on the job training and it turns out she’s wicked smart and a phenomenally fast learner. I’ve put her through some web development training and within 18 months she’s now a pretty decent developer and by far the most competent of the cohort I hired along side her. She’s also lovely and we get on really well.

Anyway, when I hired her, my company were committed to WFH and hybrid working long term. Now however, they’ve backtracked and everyone is back in the office 3 days a week mandated.

Today I had an email from the senior team asking why this employee hadn’t been back to the office so I explained that she’ll be working from home forever given the circumstances (that they’re very aware of!) and the reply I got was that she’s no longer suitable for the role now that the expectation is work from the office and I needed to let her go.

I hit the roof and went straight to HR who are looking into this now, but I’d like to know from here what is likely to happen??

If they come back and say she’s got to go and I have to fire her I’m handing my notice in on the spot, that’s a given. How likely is that though? Surely it’s discrimination?

It’s also really stupid. It costs a fortune to train new developers properly and I’ve invested a huge amount of my time into her. It’s a complete candidates market at the moment too - developer roles are everywhere, it’s really hard to find ones with the right training and she’s good enough that with a bit of off the record support she could freelance fairly easily.

Her contract doesn’t specify a place of work or working model and there is no reason on earth she couldn’t perform the role perfectly adequately from home. We all did for 2 years.

Does anyone know where we stand legally on this one? She’ll have 2 years service in June.

I’m sure the company won’t mind paying for all the alterations to enable her to go in…

“REASONABLE Adjustments” is key here. For example, for this job the lady can work from home to do the role perfectly well - that’s reasonable. But that wouldn’t always be the case for other roles, so it’s not a given people are protected under this process.

Even supposing you're right about hybrid working meaning exactly what you say, and someone were able to decide how much of the week had to be in the office, the fact is that the employer will need to make the necessary adaptations so that she can do so. And they won't be able to say the building isn't suitable for the adaptations, because if the employee was supposed to guess that 22 months down the line the company would change its position on WFH, then the employer should have guessed it would need to make the adaptations when it did its U-turn.

And really, isn't it about time Mumsnetters came out in support of fellow Mumsnetters rather than the horrid bashing some seem to indulge in?

@DrEmilleShofhousen

“REASONABLE Adjustments” is key here. For example, for this job the lady can work from home to do the role perfectly well - that’s reasonable. But that wouldn’t always be the case for other roles, so it’s not a given people are protected under this process.

Of course it's not a given but it's pretty hard for a company to argue that someone can't work at home if they've been doing so very well for the last 18 months.

Reasonable adjustment.

We have been successful using that to support well, reasonable adjustments.

1. The company are acting illegally
2. It's great that she has you as her manager
3. And yet - this thread is hugely outing.

@bevelino

Is this employment scenario in the U.K because it doesn’t sound like it. If this was the U.K. no matter how bad the leadership team, they would surely understand the law around disability discrimination.

The fact that OP has supplied very detailed information about her colleague, without concern that it is outing indicates that this scenario is unlikely to be happening in the U.K. or any other first world country.

Good point.

So, perhaps the company isn't acting illegally?

@Meklk

Read contract. We had very similar issue. Employer was RIGHT because contract says that person must be able to work in office/assets of the business. Doesn't matter someone using wheelchair or not. Person shouldn't sign the contract then.

Doesn't matter what the contract says if it breaks discrimination law.

@Meklk

Read contract. We had very similar issue. Employer was RIGHT because contract says that person must be able to work in office/assets of the business. Doesn't matter someone using wheelchair or not. Person shouldn't sign the contract then.

The employer has a duty to make reasonable adjustments. In this case the adjustment could be to WFH. Or to adapt the building to provide an accessible toilet, wheelchair ramps etc.

One of my colleagues is blind and some of his reasonable adjustments are:

• breaks to exercise his guide dog and for her to use the toilet outside
• provision for his guide dog - water bowl etc.
• specialist software so he can work
• he has a fixed desk in an area where there's space for his guide dog.

I have a reasonable adjustment to WFH in certain circumstances, like days when my mobility is bad. My sick leave is considered differently as my medication suppresses my immune system so I am more likely to catch bugs. I also have a specialist chair and other equipment.

It can be done. It's not like OP's colleague is someone permanently unable to drive for medical reasons in a taxi driver job where it is reasonable to say someone has to be able to drive and hold a divers license in order to do their job.

@Meklk

Hybrid means she must be able to work from home, office, assets.... It's very tricky. And I can bet that employer will win the case.

Utter nonsense.

We don't know what information OP has changed in order for this thread to not be outing - saying that it is on the assumption that it isn't actually a 20 year old man we're talking about is hugely overreacting.

It's all very well having an "accessible" building. But (for example) what about fire safety ?

Last job DW worked in (1995 and nothing has improved since) there was a lift and her office was on the 2nd floor. In the event of a fire 2 trained helpers were supposed to transfer her to a trolley (can't use lifts remember) and carry her down stairs.

First fire alarm (naturally) they weren't in, so DW was "crispy done" as the fire crew put it in the report. Lucky it was a false alarm.

This was for a local authority, where her boss used the disabled parking space so DW had to wheel across the car park.

Friends still there say nothing has changed.

The UK is accelerating backwards on almost every marker of equality or opportunity from my view of the past 25 years.

For all the chitter-chatter here about "rights" .... unless you can easily enforce your rights, you have none. Bear that in mind. Courts aren't free. Legal advice isn't free. Relying on the kindness of strangers may make for an uplifting Netflix movie, but it's hardly a way to live in a supposedly civilised wealthy country.

@DGRossetti I have a wheelchair user colleague who uses the lift when the fire alarm goes. There's one of those carrier things but they experience the same issues as your DW.

If there was a clear and obvious threat to life they'd probably allow someone to carry them but, other than that, they'll continue to use the lift.

Isn't it discrimination? Could she sue?

A bit off topic but want to thank you OP for fighting this womans corner. My sister became disabled during the pandemic. Thankfully she was already WFH so not many adjustments had to be made. Unfortunately her bosses bullied the entire office into all agreeing to come back in. As a result my sister has struggled greatly and they won' t budge as then "wveryone would want to". FYI this is the NHS so even the big orgs are puling this shit.

We are both currently retraining together (self taught with The Odin Project) to get in to Web Dev and are looking for entry level WFH opportunities, as a direct result of our employers forcing an "office culture" adjenda (that abd NHS pay is shit). It's nice to know it's a dev's market right now and there is plenty pf opportunity out there, but also that there are decent dept heads like you who will fight for the rights of disabled employees like my Dsis. So thamk you for that

( P.S. if you know of any entry level remote positions and where to find them we would appreciate it! If you hit "Entry level" on job searches they mostly come up with posts stating 1+ years industry experience and a huge tech stack!).

[quote girlmom21]@DGRossetti I have a wheelchair user colleague who uses the lift when the fire alarm goes. There's one of those carrier things but they experience the same issues as your DW.

If there was a clear and obvious threat to life they'd probably allow someone to carry them but, other than that, they'll continue to use the lift. [/quote]
I turned up on my first day of a temping job on crutches because I'd broken my ankle the night before.

I went up to the 9th floor, started working and the fire alarm went off 25 minutes later.

The Fire Marshall came up and directed me to the emergency lift being supervised by another member of staff as they'd already developed a policy for the transport of disabled staff, saying if there was a real fire or the lifts were out of action, I'd be going downstairs on 'that' - an evacuation chair.

This was 1993. Nearly thirty years ago.

About 3 years later, another employer decided to allow people to work from home. Somebody would drop crates of files off and collect them the following morning. It started when one person needed spinal surgery and they realised just how much work could be cleared that way. So anybody with a problem getting into work could do it for as long as necessary after that.

It's not hard for companies to make adjustments and plan ahead. They just have to want to.

@DGRossetti not the same situation but this happened to my wheelchair using dd when she was at uni. She sat in the waiting point for her help to come, but none did. Luckily it was a drill, but frightening all the same. It was this reason when choosing accommodation she didn't go for any she couldn't get out of by herself.

It is sad that companies can make so many adjustments during lockdown which for some reason they couldn't for disabled people during normal times.

@Howareyouflower

Isn't it discrimination? Could she sue?

With what ? Lawyers cost money. Tribunals cost money. Courts (if accessible) cost money.

Wow OP, you are an amazing manager for fighting this ladies corner!

For all the chitter-chatter here about "rights" .... unless you can easily enforce your rights, you have none. Bear that in mind. Courts aren't free. Legal advice isn't free

Absolutely right. Employment rights is an obvious area, but also housing law and consumer law. There aren't the resources and there is a massive unmet need for legal advice.

It is sad that companies can make so many adjustments during lockdown which for some reason they couldn't for disabled people during normal times

Too nicely expressed. I've changed it!

It is outrageous that companies could make so many adjustments during lockdown which for no/inadequate reasons they now won't for disabled people during normal times.

If she was hired during lockdown and it wasn't a condition of her employment then, I should think it would be illegal to fire her now.

You sound a lovely boss. I hope it works out for her.

Sorry for the delay, its been a very long morning.

So I called HR at 9, approached it with 'im sure this is a massive misunderstanding' and I was immediately met with 'yes we were hoping so too, unfortunately the business has some concerns we need to chat about'

It was at this point I said 'Oh right ok, well if this meeting isn't just to say disregard it all and move on I'd like to record it if you don't have any objections, I'll share the recording with you afterwards'

Cue flapping and 'oh right im not sure let me check' etc from HR, resulting in them saying they'd call me back in a minute.

They called back 15 minutes later and this time it was the head of HR and the HR director, plus (weirdly) the old HR director that came with us when we were acquired who used to work for the original company.

I started the recording and also the auto transcript tool in teams so I've got both but they've asked i dont share it with anyone internally which is fair.

Essentially, the company directors are committed to returning to the office full time in the long term, so to have one employee still working from home wont be sustainable as meetings and updates will all be in person moving forward etc etc.

I said that's fine, but I have an email chain when I questioned this during her hiring process from the leadership team confirming that I was ok to go ahead and hire her because they were happy for her to work from home 'long term' and (in their words). It's an email where I detail her disability, explicitly say she won't be in a position to come back to the office after the pandemic and would be working from home forever. I got a one line reply saying 'That's fine, no issues with long term WFH. Proceed' I hired her in good faith on this basis and she has turned out to be an excellent employee, very able to complete her role from home and I as her direct line manager don't envisage any problem with her continuing to do her role from home. They asked me to forward them that email chain which I did straight away. They read it while I was still on the phone with them and the response from the head of HR was a 'Right ok, that's fairly definitive'.

I suggested that a reasonable adjustment might be to web-host any company updates/ meetings via teams going forward, or else I was happy to dial in my colleague on my phone so she can attend the company all hands meetings virtually. I also said I didn't feel these kinds of meetings were vital to her role since they are so infrequent and dont impact her directly. Many people don't attend these updates due to workload/ sickness/ annual leave etc, they're not mandatory.

If this wasn't suitable and she is still required to attend in person, I suggested we'd probably need to relocate to an accessible office space given that she can't get in any of the meeting rooms, the break area or to her desk. I then went quiet and left that hanging. There was a pause, then the Head of HR said 'yes i agree and it's good that you're aware she's entitled to reasonable adjustments' with a pointed look that said to me that he's very much on our side on this even if he can't say so.

They have now taken my suggestions back to the leadership team and will advise them on

HR have agreed my suggestion is reasonable and answers the objections the leadership team had to her continued employment. They are going to go back to the leadership team with my suggestion and advise them on the legal side of this that they're not sure the directors are full aware of.

I then got a whatsapp from my old head of HR (we've worked together a very long time) just saying 'attagirl' so I'm taking that to mean I've given HR the stuff they need to squash it.

OP, you sound like a great line manager. Hope you get the right outcome for your employee.