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?

Exactly...and I even if the names and some other details have been changed, the detailed map of the car park should make it obvious.

And you aren’t the wrong type of disabled.

It sounds as though you need another disabled space or to swap the one without the ramp for a different one; there must be a reason why Lynda prefers the one she is using. Perhaps you could talk to Lynda, explain that you are revisiting the parking as the current situation is causing conflict, and ask her what her needs are so you can accommodate them.

OP clearly rejected that idea in favour of the nuclear option, ie spilling every confidential detail, loosely disguised, on social media 😅.

The bay doesn't have a ramp. None of the bays have ramps. The bays are all the same size. It is Sue's car that has the ramp.

Linda had friends until she became disabled enough to be the object of judgement and derision but not disabled enough to be the object of pity.

Exactly this- disabled enough to be a nuisance but not enough for pity. Without the pity factor no one gives a shit.

The team has taken on the same group think that sees white celebrities being sent off to Africa to take pictures with the poor black children- it’s why @appendix … thinks they are so inclusive…

able bodied saviours of the deserving disabled.

I am a wheelchair user myself, though I don't usually need it in the house as I do walk, I just can't get very far. Personally I would squeeze my big WAV into a normal space, provided I can unload my giant electric wheelchair from the back, and leave the other space for Sue if there were only one space because it sounds like she needs it more. Since there's another wheelchair space I'd take the one that isn't the best space for Sue, because I'm not a dick.

It does very much depend how far it is to the normal loos. Lynda is deliberately taking a disabled parking space that means she has to walk further to get into the building. She is rushing into the disabled loo as soon as she sees Sue is about to use it because she apparently is worried she will have to wait. So she can decide to walk further for the parking when that is the choice that is most harmful to Sue, and she decides not to walk further for the toilet when that is the choice that is most harmful to Sue. Disabled people are just as capable of bullying as able bodied people, and it very much does look like Lynda is bullying Sue.

Bear in mind, the only side of the story you have been told is that of a clearly incompetent, biased manager who is 100% ignorant of equality legislation and incapable of managing this situation.

So she can decide to walk further for the parking when that is the choice that is most harmful to Sue, and she decides not to walk further for the toilet when that is the choice that is most harmful to Sue.

You don’t know this, the op doesn’t even know this because a proper assessment of need hasn’t been done!

Ffs. Lynda might be going into the accessible toilet not because it’s closer but because it has other adaptations she needs, which aren’t in the normal work toilets!

I can use my own toilet without grab rails because there is a low windowsill in the right position and I use that- that doesn’t mean I could use your toilet unless you have a grab rail! She might have found a work around in the pub toilet that doesn’t exist in the work one.

Might the car park owners be willing to convert your company's owner space and the one next to it into a fourth disabled space (maybe converting the smaller disabled space back to a normal one if there isn't the demand for four disabled spaces)? Obviously it means one less space overall, but it sounds as if that's no change on what's currently happening.

The OP is an unreliable narrator

They said that the staff are used to seeing Linda parking, implying she used to park in the main part of the car park.

Now her disability has progressed she parks down the side, but the OP, and the entire company, have evidently decided that's got nothing to do with her disability despite having no evidence for this.

She may have to work further into the building but it may be closer to her desk when she gets in, the OP hasn't said. There may be other reasons, like struggling to get out of the car and not wanting the whole company who apparently have nothing better to do than watch where people park judging her for her struggles. We don't know because apparently no one has bothered to ask someone with a progressing disability what she needs.

Her using the disabled toilet over a non disabled toilet may have absolutely nothing to do with distance. It might be because she needs the extra room, or the grab bars, or worries she might need the emergency pull cord. As with the OP you have decided it has nothing to do with her disability despite having no evidence for this.

My toilet has a grab rail, you'd be welcome to use it. If it that, Lynda could just ask for a grab rail to be installed in the normal loos. That's an adjustment that's easily sorted and would solve the problem.

In fairness to the OP she has admitted that she does not feel competent to manage the situation without advice. It is ultimately the boss who is accountable for this situation; and she is equally as clueless but seems intent on forging ahead with ill-conceived solutions, without the benefit of expert advice, which are likely to make this situation even worse.

Why would she need to ask for that when there is a toilet there that already meets her needs? The accessibility loo is not for Sue's sole use.

You're not the first wheelchair user here who says they think about other people and would do X, Y and Z. But why does that not apply to Sue too? She knows other people (Lynda) use that loo. She also knows she takes a long time when she uses it. Why does no one think she should also "be kind" and give Lynda the heads-up that's she's going to need the loo soon so Lynda can use it before Sue needs it? Why is it only Lynda who should think of others?

100%. Heaven forfend that a disabled person be less than entirely uncomplaining, and pathetically grateful for any meagre scraps of disability accommodation tossed her way. Lynda is clearly not 'doing disability' right.

I wish I could say I was shocked by the casual disablism from many posters on this thread but I have encountered it so often irl that it no longer shocks me.

OP has NOT stated that Lynda parks somewhere with a further walk.

Only that she parks there because office gossip says she can sneak in late and out early (although she arrives before Sue!)

Nothing concrete suggests she is bullying Sue by using facilities that she is also allowed to use. So much of what the OP has said is clearly bullying of Lynda though

@ButWhatAboutTheBees

What you claim:

"OP has NOT stated that Lynda parks somewhere with a further walk."

Vs reality:

"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."

But Lynda is the victim! Sure.

Ah yes…a grab rail is another thing that could have been sorted by the company actually fulfilling it’s responsibility to do a proper assessment of needs.

If she needs an emergency cord? Or flat access? Or better lighting? Or more space? Or a sink within the toilet cubicle? I suppose if she had just asked then they would have fallen over themselves to install all that in the normal loos.

They absolutely wouldn’t have said she is just taking the piss because we saw her use a toilet in a pub once, and that’s exactly the same as the access needs of someone at work all day everyday. And anyway she can walk so she can’t be that disabled.

Because Sue is a wheelchair user don’t you know, she is the right sort of disabled.

Closer to the MAIN entrance...

Because they think she's using the side entrance to fiddle her hours.

Also entrance isn't her desk. Her desk still could be closer to the side entrance...

In other words, people see Sue as lesser. They aren't siding with her because they are kind and empathetic. They just pity her. They don't pity Lynda though because they don't see her as lesser. They see her as an able person like them and therefore just judge her as being unkind to the lesser Sue.

Yep. Its amazing the pity power a wheelchair holds.

God forbid I’m out alone “have you been abandoned? Shall I get help?” people ask while I read a book in a cafe, “don’t you have someone to do that for you?” while I’m shopping, “you’re doing very well!” while
I do normal parenting 🤦‍♀️

The fact is... it doesn't matter if Lynda is being an obstructive ass because:

• The company haven't bothered to do any kind of disability access assessment and are just making assumptions about how "disabled" Lynda is. They are judging her as "less" disabled, and therefore less deserving, of accommodations she might well need because Sue is much more visibly disabled. Any suggests have been that Lynda needs to conform to their ideas of what her needs are and that she should "give up" some of those accommodations for Sue
• Lynda is progressively getting more disabled but is being judged on what she used to be able to do - because she could previously walk across the car park from a small space she obviously doesn't need a closer bay with wider access now and because she could use the normal loos before then she must be able to now.
• Lynda is quite clearly the victim of workplace bullying, worse it can be linked back to as her condition worsened that people have cut her off more. In office coffee rounds and lunch orders deliberately miss her out (despite her sitting right there presumably). She is the only one not being invited on informal nights out. She is also the victim of malicious office gossip regarding her working hours- despite her arriving before Sue she is judged as arriving late and leaving early (maybe Lynda might need these reduced houes because of her disability and the tone from OP regarding this is somewhat resentful) - in a workplace which is promoted as flexible so long as you do your work.
• Lynda then spoke to someone senior to her to discuss her issues with the toxic atmosphere being created. The response she got was dismissive and did nothing to help. Then, instead of addressing the bullying complaints, the owner upon hearing about these issues decided to implement a policy which was clearly deliberately targeting Lynda and would also make her even less popular. Meanwhile the senior member of staff Lynda spoke to went and put all the details online whilst showing a clear bias against Lynda and directly stating the company owner has issues with Lynda and doesn't like her.

Lynda would definitely have a case to take regarding the workplace bullying and toxic culture which is coming from the top down. She could also point out how no disability access assessments were done and so she tried to manage her access requirements herself and was made to feel she was wrong for doing so.

This thread is also full of disgusting ableism where posters continue to judge Lynda as in some way less deserving despite knowing nothing about her condition and requirements, purely because Sue needs a wheelchair

You're so brave! You're so incredible!

Ugh! It's so patronising. People don't even realise what it says about them.

I know!

I feel like saying “actually I’m a complete bitch. I set fire to kittens, regularly steal wheely bins and I’m shagging your wife”