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?

Disabled people frequently have an understanding of, and are mindful of the needs of other disabled people. This doesn’t appear to be happening here and there is clearly some resentment between the two for whatever reason. As a disabled person Lynda is perfectly entitled to use the accessible toilet, but just because she can, does that mean she should if she can reasonably use the standard toilets as an alternative ?

The crux of the matter here is that as a wheelchair user, Sue doesn’t have an alternative to the accessible loo and Lynda is not mindful of that. And we don’t know what Sue’s disability is, but looking at the level of equipment she needs, I take a guess that there’s a spinal problem. And incontinence is a factor with spinal injuries or conditions. So, no, someone getting to the toilet before you isn’t always just life. Sometimes it’s the difference between getting to a suitable toilet in time or sitting in a corridor quietly having an accident because you can only use one loo and it’s occupied. Not saying Lynda may not have a perfectly valid reason for needing the accessible toilet just as much as Sue. But that needs to be established in the interests of being fair to all.

The employer also can’t allocate a BB space they don’t own or have responsibility for to a specific employee. They can’t even allocate it to their employees as a whole because it’s a shared car park working on a first come first served basis. As I’ve said, any BB owner can park there.

it has to be disability related, and not just personal preference. If it’s disability related then the employer has a problem which on the face of it seems to be at stalemate.

Not quite- as it’s a free for all, first come first served car park where the company can’t allocate spaces, Lynda just has to have a BB to park there- it doesn’t matter if she just fancies it rather than needs it- yes it isn’t ‘kind’ but it isn’t something you can legislate against either.

If the company were to rent extra parking space they could allocate, or move premises to one they do own/manage then they could implement a different plan.

As it is they have done such a great job of alienating a previously well liked and respected colleague as she has become more disabled, that I doubt she will choose to amend her behaviour purely out of good will.

The crux of the matter is Sue's level of need does not mean other people with needs can be told not to use that toilet. We know nothing about Lynda's continence needs. And even if Lynda allows her employer to make judgments about her disability, they cannot prevent her from using that toilet. Just as they cannot prevent her from parking in any BB space. If they want that type of control, they will have to go buy their own premises and allocate everyone with individual parking spots and toilets.

It's crazy to me how so many people think people's needs only matter if they don't interfere with other people's needs. They ALL matter. You can't just take away parking spots and toilet access from one person because someone else needs it. Employers can't make one disabled person's life harder to make another disabled person's life easier to make up for their failure to accommodate everyone's needs.

I didn’t suggest that Lynda be stopped from using the accessible toilet, but a needs assessment for reasonable adjustment would establish whether she was able to use the standard loos as an alternative, given that Sue has no alternative other than to use the accessible loo, and if spinal issues mean there is a level of incontinence there it would be the kind thing to do - and OP has been clear that on nights out Lynda has no problem using the standard loos.

Her posts have also demonstrated that Lynda does seem to be waging some kind of vendetta against Sue and beats her to the loo every time. If this is true then it makes a proper needs assessment even more urgent. As I said before, the Equality Act makes provision for disabled people to access what they need to participate fully. It doesn’t give them a licence to ignore the needs of others and not make reasonable adjustment themselves if they are able. Being disabled doesn’t entitle you to act like a dick, and it doesn’t put you above accusations of victimisation of a disabled colleague, which is how this could be interpreted.

but what you would then be saying is Lynda isn’t disabled enough to need a disabled toilet just because say if there was no other option at all she might be able to use a normal toilet.

Like I might use the gents if I need to and it’s the only option. It then doesn’t mean I’m not entitled to use the ladies.

Disabled people frequently have an understanding of, and are mindful of the needs of other disabled people. This doesn’t appear to be happening here

This is a common problem for disabled people- I’ll use Sue and Lynda as examples, although we don’t actually know enough to know what is true in this situation, but it keeps things simple to stick to them-

The able bodied population of the office see Sue as a pitiful character because of her obvious disability- the type you see on charity fundraising tv, that makes them think “there but for the grace of God go I…”

They don’t understand why Lynda isn’t having the same emotional response as them (because she is already disabled, so she is seeing Sue as her equal, not as ‘one of those disabled people’).

And then they are expecting her to go one step further than them and sacrifice her needs for Sue, because they think she should be emotionally affected like them, AND understand Sue’s needs better because she is also ‘a bit (but not properly) disabled’.

So when Lynda doesn’t look down on Sue as a poor thing, instead seeing her as an equal and treats her as one, everyone thinks she is a horrible person.

Actually she is the only one who isn’t seeing Sue as lesser and in need of special treatment- she just sees her as the abrasive Daily Mail reading, ‘woke’ hating women she hasn’t ever seen eye to eye with.

The Equality Act does not say disabled people must give way to people in wheelchairs. Lynda, as an employee, does not have to make reasonable adjustments for others. How do you think this urgent needs assessment will change things exactly? It is not going to say Lynda has to stop using the disabled loo. What it will say is that Sue's needs are not being met and therefore the employer will have to make changes. Those changes will not involve removing Lynda's right to access the loo or parking bay of choice.

Doesn’t mean that Lynda isn’t entitled to use the accessible toilet. Reasonable adjustment means exactly that. Two employees need to use the one accessible toilet. One employee is wheelchair bound and doesn’t have the option to use a standard loo if the accessible one is in use. The other employee is ambulant and does have that option. Ergo, if they need to use the loo at the same time, the one with the option to use the standard loo does so, and leaves the accessible one free for their colleague.

It’s not a matter of being ‘disabled enough’, it’s a matter of reasonable adjustment in favour of the one with the greatest need. I was a disability support worker for a disabled charity for many years and I’ve actually seen this put into practice. Reasonable adjustment doesn’t just apply to the employer, other employees have to adjust to make it work and where there are limited resources I’ve seen other disabled employees step up and put their fellow disabled colleagues first wherever necessary. The amount of ill will in the OP’s scenario is astonishing, as is some posters’ assertion that Sue’s disability garners her more support because of the ‘pity’ element, without even a thought to the fact that the amount of equipment and adaptation she needs to keep her mobile speaks to the level of need. And the notion of a ‘disability hierarchy’ is just downright offensive. Dreadful thread.

The parking can be easily dealt with by removing the larger disabled bay and replacing it with a numbered reserved only bay. It’s quite common on private land that deals with people who have mobility needs. It allows the larger vehicle their needed room. As long as there is still disabled parking it’s not discrimination as it’s a reasonable adjustment for a need that might not be shared needs. The toilet one is a HR nightmare, been there it doesn’t end well.

Again, I would make the point that no one can insist that people spend their own personal time with anyone. Your argument would stand if it was an official works outing but you cannot discriminate against someone on the basis you simply don’t like them! Just because people are disabled, doesn’t give them the right to be obnoxious idiots and then expect everyone to bend over backwards to be friends with them! The world has gone mad enough without telling people who they are and are not allowed to befriend! In your argument, what about Sue? Does she not have the same “protected characteristics “ maybe she should raise a grievance over this obnoxious woman who try’s to make her life more difficult than it already is!

But Lynda doesn't actually "need" the further away, larger space. She has a problem with walking and the closer, still accessible to her disabled space is available for her to use.

She's simply being a twat. If I was Sue, and someone was physically preventing me from attending work, because that's what she's doing, I would remain at home until it was sorted out.

That’s not what’s being said here. It’s not about the disability, it’s about the level of need as a result of that disability. And in practice, where resources are limited, Lynda, as well as other employees absolutely will need to consider their own actions as a result of any reasonable adjustment put into place, because the employer can’t make that reasonable adjustment work without their co-operation.

No one is stopping Lynda from using the accessible toilet. What the needs assessment will do is to establish whether Lynda, as the more mobile employee, has the option to use the standard loo when the accessible one is in use. If so, then reasonable adjustment could simply be her agreement that in the event they both need the loo at the same time, she will use the standard loo and leave the accessible one to Sue in recognition that she has no alternative.

As has already been mentioned, the Equality Act doesn’t allow for people being shitty to one another simply because they can. Reasonable adjustment requires people to act within the law and cooperate towards a solution that suits everyone. What’s being advocated on this thread seems to be that Lynda is perfectly entitled to act like a petulant child and put Sue at a disadvantage as a result. If that turns out to be unlawful and infringes Sue’s rights as a result, then Lynda isn’t above accusations of victimisation.

Quite clearly Lynda does not see Sue as an equal. She rushes to the toilet when she sees Sue making her way to the toilet on the chance that she might need to later. That is not treating someone as an equal. She is the one expecting Sue to sacrifice for her

Read the thread.

No one knows what Lynda’s disability is, how it affects her or why she parks where she does.

The only thing in evidence is that one person uses a wheelchair and the other doesn’t.

But what if using the non disabled toilet say causes pain so it’s genuinely a last resort. That’s not acceptable either is it.

There is clearly something in the disabled toilet even if it’s just more space to do whatever she needs that makes it more suitable. Nobody just uses it for the shits and giggles unless the other is occupied.

And again parking. That space is closer to the side door that she uses. So is closer to the door she wants to use, presumably closer to her desk since she has mobility issues.

Then why has she not had a problem using standard toilets on work organised social events ? And if what OP says in her update is true - that Lynda rushes ahead of Sue every time she makes a move towards the loo, then obviously something is going on.

I mean people probably do use it just for shits sometimes 😉

Oh ffs this is tedious.

She rushes to the toilet when she sees Sue making her way to the toilet on the chance that she might need to later.

This is the gossipy, biased rhetoric in the office- the op has steadfastly refused to clarify if she or anyone else actually sees this every day or has any evidence of it.

“The final frustration is that when Lynda was still invited on nights out the disabled facilities in the local pub often have a queue as they're baby changing as well (I know how shit this is!) so Lynda just uses the normal toilets then.... “

so prior to being not invited out she used the normal toilet because there was a long queue but otherwise it would read she would again use the disabled toilets.

So a needs must basis regardless of why she actually requires a more accessible toilet. So if my options are shit my self or maybe have other issues but not shit my self in public I’m going with not shitting myself in public.

doesn’t mean she doesn’t actually require or need the disabled toilet just that in a ah shit fuck she can just manage.

Definitely for the shits. I’ve not giggled yet though 😂

I can use a standard toilet. But if there is nothing to grab hold of I risk dislocating my hip, being in significant pain and having an impact on my disability bringing the day I a permanently in a wheelchair forward. I also have IBS

On a night out if the choice is between shitting myself and using the standard toilet I will take the risk of pain etc. I absolutely shouldn't be expected to do this on a day to day basis in the workplace where there is an accessible toilet.

It's really not that hard to understand why someone with a progressive disability might have used a standard toilet in an emergency once but might not be able to use one at a later date on a regular basis

So let’s get this straight Lynda is a bitch because …

She parks in her legally entitled to blue badge space closer to the door she uses…

She if seeing Sue go towards the toilet knowing she will need to go pops in ahead because Sue takes a long time.

Can force herself to use a normal toilet in a oh shit going to shit/piss my situation so clearly doesn’t deserve a disabled toilet ever.

righto. But she’s not being bullied by no longer being invited to things and being ruthlessly gossiped out at work. While saint Sue who gets to work late is perfectly perfect as she’s the correct level of disabled 😏

Yet you can decide that the office see Sue as a "pitiful character"

Based on what exactly?

Jesus wept