Would you hire someone visibly anorexic?

[Ncncncncc]

I’m looking for honest (even if brutal) answers.

Where have I said that? Talk about extrapolating!

I said there are some jobs where full physical mobility is required and I absolutely stand by that. Lifeguard, for example.

Well in that case it would be unlikely to work (as acknowledged - adjustments have to be reasonable for the business) but I'm confused as to why you are focusing so much on physical disabilities here - a huge number of conditions likely to come under the EA have very little bearing on physical mobility including the one we are discussing on this thread.

Unfortunately there are plenty of incredibly sheltered people who hear "disabled" and think "wheelchair".

And presumably doggy day care centres involve other aspects such as admin. Which a wheelchair user would likely be suitable for. That would be reasonable adjustment. As would creating another post which incorporated things that needed to be done, but which weren’t quite so physical and could be done from a sitting position.

I wasn't meaning to focus on physical disability, I was just using my own area of work as a real-life example of how you can't always make reasonable adjustments for someone's condition.

Yeah, you can’t just assume you know something based on someone’s appearance- that is discrimination. For op and this question, I’d say usually if someone has a disease that impacts their appearance or mobility in a way that is visually obvious to others, they’ll mention it in interview. Not mentioning the fact you look obviously unwell is an obvious sign someone isn’t well if you know what I mean.

Tbh more to the point, as op has said she is anorexic, we should all be encouraging her to get some help for it. It is a mental health condition and can be treated.

You think a company should pay two salaries instead of one so they can take on someone unable to to do the actual job they need doing?

Many daycares operate out of people's homes with just one or two members of staff. It wouldn't be possible (or affordable) to pay one person to solely do admin.

But it's an utterly pointless example. You're not going to get a wheelchair user applying for a role as a lifeguard. In the vast majority of cases employers are not being asked to make reasonable adjustments for conditions it would be impossible to accommodate.

If a person already in the role had an accident that meant they could no longer carry out their job, an employer would be legally obligated to look at all possible alternatives and show why these weren't feasible before proceeding to capability dismissal.

I wasn't talking about lifeguards in that post, I was talking about people working in a kennels or a doggy daycare. You're mixing up which post you're replying to.

And yes, wheelchair users do apply for those roles and unfortunately have to be turned down for safety reasons.

I am very sceptical of your claim that a wheelchair user would ever apply for a role where it is clearly stated in the job advert they need to get down on the floor and run after dogs.

I wasn't confused about the post either, same principle.

You'd be surprised at what people apply for. I've genuinely had people who can't walk unaided approach me about joining me as a dog walker before.

Is creating an entirely new and completely different job a reasonable adjustment? Wouldn't the company be likely to have its admin covered already?

In that case you'd be fine to say they weren't suitable for the role.

I'm struggling to see, in this case, what possible reasonable adjustments an employer could foresee not being able to make that would make them reject an anorexic person outright, as multiple people on this thread have said they would.

I'm interested in this too, especially in a small company with only a couple of employees vs. a large chain where you could easily move someone to a different department with no real issue.

If it was a new person applying for a role then no, don't think anyone would consider that a reasonable adjustment.

If the person was already in the role but then became unable to perform it then it wouldn't necessarily mean you had to create a new role for them but you'd have to show you'd genuinely considered all possible alternatives before dismissing them on capability grounds.

I think there's a difference between replying on MN saying "no, I wouldn't do that" and being in a position where you're legally obligated to consider it.

No. The question was regarding an existing employee who had an accident and couldn’t do the job for which they were originally taken on. In that case reasonable adjustment would be to look at the range of duties across the board to see if swapping to admin was a possibility for example, or modifying that persons’ post to take out and reassign some of the more physical aspects and replace them with things that could perhaps be done sitting down.

Posters don’t seem to realise that in these instances, these are things that a tribunal would expect employers to have explored before sacking someone on the grounds that their disability means they can no longer do the job for which they were originally employed. Disability is a protected characteristic which employees have from day one of employment. And if they feel they have been discriminated against on the grounds of their disability they are entitled to seek redress through the tribunal system from day one. And if an employer Is found not to have properly engaged with reasonable adjustment, or it’s deemed that the employee could have been accommodated, then the employer will be held to account. It’s not a ‘concession’ to the disabled, it’s a law designed to protect them from exactly the type of unthinking discriminatory attitudes on display in this thread.

What would happen if you could offer them an alternative role, but it was on vastly reduced hours?

I'm not asking to be awkward - but using the admin example, many small businesses could employ someone solely on that basis, but it would only be for maybe one day a week. Would they have to find a way to make up a full-time role?

Exactly my point! If your employee suddenly became disabled and you just said, on your bike then, without fully exploring all possible reasonable adjustments and alternatives, and clearly showing they weren't feasible for the business, you'd be given short shrift at tribunal.

Some small business owners seem to think the law shouldn't apply to them. If you're not clued up on your responsibilities as an employer and can't be arsed to become so then you shouldn't be employing people.

No. The question was regarding an existing employee who had an accident and couldn’t do the job for which they were originally taken on. In that case reasonable adjustment would be to look at the range of duties across the board to see if swapping to admin was a possibility for example, or modifying that persons’ post to take out and reassign some of the more physical aspects and replace them with things that could perhaps be done sitting down.

But there are jobs where that just wouldn't be possible, or at least, not on anything like a full-time basis.

Absolutely no-one on this thread has said they would just say "on yer bike" to an employee who became disabled, though.

They're saying that there are, legitimately, some roles where certain disabilities cannot be accommodated by the employer.

Well personally I find it pretty alarming how many posters are quite happy to admit they wouldn't hire someone on the basis they have an eating disorder, especially since any reasonable adjustments made for that particular disability are unlikely to have a significant cost impact.

Fair enough. Not all impacts are financial, though, though I appreciate the law doesn't necessarily care about that.