Regarding disabled parking

[appendix]

I work for a small company. We have office space in a small building which houses a number of other companies. There is just about enough adequate parking for all employees in terms of number of spaces.
Here is where I think I've messed up. I'm operations manager. The company is too small to have HR (we outsource things like payroll) so often HR adjacent queries end up with me.

We have 2 disabled employees. One (Sue) has significantly mobility limitations and uses a big motorised wheelchair. The other (Lynda) has less significant mobility issues (ie doesn't need a wheelchair, can walk small distances.) Both are have blue badges.

There are 3 disabled spaces in the carpark. One can be discounted as it's always in use by an employee of another company in the building who starts work very early. Out of the remaining 2 only one is big enough to accommodate Sue's needs (electric ramp for a big wheelchair etc). The issue we have is that Lynda insists on parking in it. She gets to work earlier than Sue who has childcare limitations and always parks there. It's causing a lot of frustration and ill will, especially as the other non wheelchair sized space is actually closer to the entrance, so it seems a perverse choice.

There has been a lot of grumbling among staff about this. It was especially bad a few days ago when Sue had to call for assistance - she had to get out of her car at the entrance and a colleague had to park her vehicle for her. Lynda sits watching this. Other staff members have spoken to her and asked if she could park in the other, closer space but she refuses.

Note- Sue and Lynda have clashed a bit over the years- there's only one disabled loo on our floor and yet they seem to always need it at the same time etc. I've been reliably informed that Lynda won't park close to the entrance because then her start and leave times will be visible to everyone- the other larger space is around a bend and can be accessed via a side door so her in and outs are not visible.

Anyway, we have spoken multiple times to the people who own the offices. They give no shits. The car park is apparently compliant in terms of spaces and they're not prepared to do anything more.

Our company owner has now said that whichever employee gets in first needs to park next to her reserved space and let reception know. When Sue arrives the person in the space next to the reserved one nips out, moves their car and Sue parks across both spaces. Owner then just parks where she can find a space.

It's not ideal especially in the rain. It's caused massive ill will towards Lynda who has just come to me and said she feels she's being bullied due to her disability. (She's not being included in lunch orders or social stuff organised by staff themselves, although she is fully included in terms of her job.) Honestly the company owner doesn't feel particularly warm towards her.

I'm not a HR person. I felt that as she wasn't being excluded in terms of work etc there's not a lot I can do about people liking her and I pretty much told her that. I was talking to a friend about it though and they said we could actually be in trouble for not including her in lunches/ social things, especially as it's because of issues caused by a disability. (She's invited to all work organised events, just not informal staff drinks / lunches/ chats/ coffee rounds organised by the staff)

I'm going to suggest getting some HR advice but was I wrong?

At least its a change from the "disabled people are doing it wrong claiming benefits and should be in work" to "disabled people are doing working wrong"

Another day, another flavour of bashing people with disabilities

Company owner (top dog) needs to send an email to Linda.

Hi Linda

Going forward and as of immediate effect please can you park in the other disabled bay and leave the bigger one for Sue as it’s the only one which accommodates her chair.

Thanks

Joe Bloggs
(Managing Director)

She definitely should

Give Lynda more to take to tribunal

"I spoke to a senior member of staff about how I felt bullied by other members of staff. The response I got from them was that it wasn't their problem. The boss then implemented a new policy that was clearly targeting me and further more sent me an email insisting I do not park where I am entitled to park without first discussing with me my needs and requirements for the job, valuing another employee over me."

Maybe the way forward is to do a formal risk assessment for both Lynda and Sue to make clear what their respective needs are so that their needs can be properly accommodated?

https://www.hse.gov.uk/disability/overview.htm

It wasn't clear by how you wrote it, but apologies if I misconstrued your meaning.

However, it's a pity that caring about all of the disabled people's needs is seen as 'getting on my high horse'.

I think a lot of people here are falling over themselves so much to defend Lynda's right to take over additional facilities intended specifically for people with disabilities that she doesn't have, that they haven't given a second thought to Sue, who DOES need those specific facilities.

I've no idea where you're inferring that from.

In case you thought I meant monetary disability benefits, I was referring to adjustments that, for her personal circumstances, are absolutely not necessary in any way, but thus might seem like a nice bonus anyway if she can still claim them.

Of course Lynda is disabled and of course she is entitled to a blue badge.

She is also fully entitled to all adjustments and access provisions that she needs, but she seems to be deliberately seeking to take adjustments that she doesn't need from somebody who does need them, as part of her apparent belief that only her disability matters.

Supposing you had a blind employee and a deaf employee (each with no other conditions), they are both obviously disabled and have an absolute right to the necessary adjustments to give them as much equity as possible; but if you were giving out information leaflets to everybody in the workplace and only had one audio-described version - and the deaf employee insisted on taking it, so the blind person was left with nothing - would you just say "Well, she is disabled, so she has just as much right to/need for it"?

The very selfish parking is bad enough; but her admitted ploy to stop Sue from using the toilet every single time Sue NEEDS it and force her to wait a long time, just because she (Lynda) believes that she should take permanent priority and just in case she might be able to go, is truly nasty. Verging on abusive, I would say.

Well, no, if the DEAF employee was taking the AUDIO version then you'd be right to think "WTF?" Because it would be pointless

But we don't ACTUALLY know what disabilities, beyond struggling to walk, Lynda has to be making judgement on why she might need the bigger space or why she might have toilet anxiety and not want to be left waiting for the space she needs. We just know that she uses them. And that she might well need them. And that she entitled to the parking space as that is "just" a blue badge holder's space and not a "I've got a big wheelchair" space. Disabled toilets are NOT only intended for people in wheelchairs. People who need the extra room perhaps to change a stoma bag, the handles for leverage off the seat, the alarm in case they need help, the lower toilet and sink...

We also know for certain she is being bullied because OP has told us that.

Well, no, if the DEAF employee was taking the AUDIO version then you'd be right to think "WTF?" Because it would be pointless

You would assume so; but a lot of people on here seem to be suggesting that 'disabled' is a one-size-fits-all label and it's appalling to want to ensure all adjustments that a disabled person needs, whilst not having to ensure the ones that they don't.

It's also pertinent that one may wonder why the deaf person (with no sight problems) is taking an audio version that they almost certainly cannot use; but feel unable to ask why they are unable to read the standard one - alongside their other colleagues who also have good eyesight, but happen not to have any other disabilities.

It's an extremely patronising attitude to take towards disabled people, as if they are a different species, with 'disabled' the major part of their identity.

It seems to me that a lot of people see it as a blunt binary: either you are perfectly healthy and able-bodied; or otherwise you are 'disabled' and could thus have any disabilities whatsoever, including those of which you have never shown any sign or indication or ever sought adjustments for.

she isn’t at any obligation to disclose why she needs it. If it’s a disabled space and she has a blue badge she isn’t legally doing anything wrong regardless of it better suits someone else with a blue badge to park there. That’s not how it works, legally.

That isn't what anyone is suggesting. "There isn't a hierarchy of disability" isn't "any disability can access anything"

In this case these two employees have both got disabilities relating to their physical movement. From the limited knowledge we have - one is in a wheelchair and one struggles to walk and has a worsening condition (due to the fact they didn't used to require a blue badge). We don't know what condition the one who struggles to walk has, how it's worsening, whether there are other issues such as toileting issues...

From the limited information we have we cannot reasonably judge that the one who can walk a little doesn't have further needs which would require the space she uses (as someone suggested, maybe the side door leads to her desk more directly which means she has to walk less for example) nor that she doesn't have toilet issues which mean she needs both the bigger space and has anxiety over having to wait because waiting could cause further issues

Sue being in a wheelchair doesn't trump Lynda struggling to walk. It doesn't make Sue more deserving because Lynda has just been given a blue badge. It doesn't mean Sue is the only one entitled to use the disabled loo or the bigger space.

We have 2 disabled employees. One (Sue) has significantly mobility limitations and uses a big motorised wheelchair. The other (Lynda) has less significant mobility issues (ie doesn't need a wheelchair, can walk small distances.) Both are have blue badges.

You have no idea if Lynda has less significant mobility issues. She might be in constant pain when Lynda is not.

You don't know if Lynda needs the extra space to open her car door fully to get out. You don't know if she is bothered about someone seeing her leaving the car, it can be pretty undignified.

You need to talk to both of them about their needs. And you need to listen.

I have a progressive condition, when I was at the stage of using a walking stick some days I didn't, not because I didn't need it but I physically could not hold it.

You need to work out a solution.

One college I worked at allowed disabled employees to book a parking space (only 3 accessible spaces and more people) there would be a sign placed reserving your space but it was only reserved until 9am. After that anyone could park there.

You might find it useful to contact the Job Centre and ask for their 'access to work' specialist.

@ButWhatAboutTheBees

"as someone suggested, maybe the side door leads to her desk more directly which means she has to walk less for example"

The OP stated that parking in the only space suitable for Sue results in Lynda actually having to walk further than if she'd parked in either of the other two spaces.

It is details like that which are pissing off her colleagues.

I really don't understand this desperate attempt to defend Lynda. She's managed to alienate a 'nice, open-minded, liberal office' with her bullying of Sue - but the 'all disabled people are saintly victims' gang are desperate to turn this around.

I think a lot of people here are falling over themselves so much to defend Lynda's right to take over additional facilities intended specifically for people with disabilities that she doesn't have, that they haven't given a second thought to Sue, who DOES need those specific facilities.

Linda has a blue badge so does need a disabled parking spot and the OP has said nothing to indicate she doesn't need a disabled toilet so I'm not sure how she is supposed to be taking over facilities intended for people with disabilities she doesn't have given we don't even know what disabilities she does have!

I personally have give a second thought to Sue. I just happen to notice the OP and her boss are willing to bring in an external HR firm and instigate measures to try to sack Linda but aren't willing to pick the phone up to the car park people and reserve another spot or swap their reserved spots around. Apparently its just easier to blame the person with a progressing disability because she could do other things months ago before her disability progressed

It not about not having a second though about Sue. Its about the distastfulness of blaming a disabled person over a lack of facilities for disabled people.

Left field. Maybe Lynda wants you to fire her so she can go take it up for some ££££.

Maybe she knows just how in the wrong you all thing she is and has all the evidence she needs.

Aaaannd the ableism just keeps coming. @appendix, in your shoes I would take this shitshow of a thread down before it started raining down on my own (unprotected) head.

Once more with feeling: HR is not an optional extra, and this is what happens when you're too stupid to realise that or too stingy to fork out for it. You are setting the company up for a major payout and your boss won't thank you for it.

And you think that it is OK to pressure an employee who has suffered disability discrimination to give up their livelihood and waive her statutory right to be protected from discrimination, in return for a sum of money that may last her a few months? Do you think it would be easy for her, with a progressive disability, to then find another job?

I think you need to think about what you are advocating here. Settlement agreements have their uses to end irresolvable disputes in the workplace; they should not however be used as 'gagging orders' to enable unscrupulous employers to avoid the consequences of discriminatory mistreatment of their employees, including the failure to bother to ensure proper accommodation of the disabled.

Ultimately that would lead to a corrupt working environment which in turn affects everyone.This is already a significant problem according to the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

'.....there are many reasons why workers may not feel able to speak up about discrimination. These reasons include the belief that a complaint will not be taken seriously, fear of being victimised, fear that the alleged perpetrator will be protected and a lack of appropriate reporting procedures. It is also clear that confidentiality agreements are part of the problem.

We recognise that confidentiality agreements (also known as non- disclosure agreements or NDAs) have legitimate uses.....However, evidence suggests that in some circumstances confidentiality agreements have been used to cover up the worst instances of discrimination......The use of confidentiality agreements impacts on the culture of an organisation as a whole and not just on the workers who sign them. Workers will be encouraged to share their experiences if others have done so first; silencing those who have felt able to raise their concerns will deter others from coming forward.

The purpose of the Equality Act 2010 is to protect people from discrimination in their work and other contexts and to support progress in equality. It is important that confidentiality agreements are used lawfully and in a way that supports equality while reducing discrimination.'

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/guidance-confidentiality-agreements-in-discrimination-cases.pdf

... although it's worth bearing in mind that if Lynda or anyone who knows her is on here, they will have taken screenshots.

@MrsJackThornton

"I just happen to notice the OP and her boss are willing to bring in an external HR firm and instigate measures to try to sack Linda but aren't willing to pick the phone up to the car park people and reserve another spot or swap their reserved spots around."

The OP has repeatedly stated that their company doesn't own the building or car park. They have attempted to engage with the landlord on this matter, but the landlord has refused to make any changes to the car park.

I guess some people aren't willing to actually discuss the matter at hand and prefer to argue about ideal situations that don't exist.

Hopefully! Especially this gem from the OP re the company plans!
Sadly she's also going to instigate people signing in and out officially. This is going to really annoy everyone- whilst it's positioned as "just to keep an eye on where everyone is" it will be also be used to look at hours worked. I did say we couldn't only look at Lynda's hours, hence the blanket approach. I worry this will stir up more ill feeling. It's very contrary to previous ways of working.

The OP has said that, on work nights out, Lynda has used the normal loos rather than queuing for the disabled loo. She has also said that she's tried talking to the company who owns the building about the parking but they won't change anything.

If you're going to make statements about what the OP has or hasn't said you should at least read all the OPs posts if you can't manage the whole thread.

Agreed.
Actually feel like I should start a poll on who do mumsnetters hate most
Disabled People or Fat people. It’s a close call.

Supposing you had a blind employee and a deaf employee (each with no other conditions), they are both obviously disabled and have an absolute right to the necessary adjustments to give them as much equity as possible; but if you were giving out information leaflets to everybody in the workplace and only had one audio-described version - and the deaf employee insisted on taking it, so the blind person was left with nothing - would you just say "Well, she is disabled, so she has just as much right to/need for it"?

Ok. Being deaf does not mean you have zero hearing. Just as being physically disabled does not mean you are in a wheelchair.

You can be deaf and still have some hearing. And just because you think the deaf employee doesn't have any other conditions doesn't mean they don't. They could be dyslexic (for example), which would mean the audio version is better for them. They might have amplifying aids to help them hear things. But if you don't know much about deafness then to you it looks like they are just stealing from someone else.

In your scenario, the fault is that the employer is providing just one audio version. They should be providing enough for anyone who might need it, not just for the one person they have decided is worthy of it. It's the same with the parking bays.

Employees aren't obligated to share every medical issue with their employer. If their needs are being met with audio recordings or disabled parking bays, there is no need for them to "justify" it to others. It is not for other people to decide if disabled people are disabled enough.

The OP hasn't said they have asked the company to swap around the reserved parking so that their reserved parking is next to the disabled spot which plenty have people have suggested as a solution

The OP has said that, on work nights out, Lynda has used the normal loos rather than queuing for the disabled loo.

I can sometimes walk and sometimes I need a wheelchair. It if I was put in a solution where I had to walk somewhere rather than wait for wheelchair access I might force myself to walk. That doesn't mean I should be forced to walk on a daily basis at work because someone saw me walk occasionally and decided I don't need to use the lift at work. Your assumption are as ableist as your post is rude.

Fat disabled clearly they are disabled because they are fat duh

🙃

The stupidest thing is that starting to monitor people's comings and going isn't even going to help Sue because Lynda already arrives early. It's just part of this bullying vendetta against Lynda, but all it will do is make her arrive even earlier or stay later. And put pressure on everyone else to do the same. Idiots.