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?

No, it requires a proper needs based assessment of whether ‘reasonable adjustment’ in this instance could just be a simple agreement on Lynda’s part to use the standard loo if she and Sue need to use the loo at the same time. Lynda is more mobile and clearly has the option to use a standard toilet if need be. Sue doesn’t have that option because the standard toilet won’t accommodate her wheelchair. If Lynda can reasonably use the standard loo in this scenario then the solution is simple.

Indeed. My ibs can flare so bad I can actually pass out while in the bathroom unless I can cool down enough and basically lay/sit onthe floor basically still arse out. Not so easy in a normal bathroom but a risk that sometimes has to be taken.

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.

Again with passing the buck- employer ‘can’t’ (read doesn’t want to spend the money or deal with the hassle to) provide decent accessibility, so the disabled employees have to make up for it.

Well in the real life example I gave above of my "ability" to use a standard toilet, if my workplace told me I had to do that and risk the pain and worsening of my condition I would be contacting a solicitor to sue for disability discrimination and constructive dismissal.

You seem to think someone with a progressive disability using a standard toilet once, awhile ago, is evidence that they "can" use a standard toilet every time. It's not an it's a real misunderstanding of disabilities to assume that

I was of the opinion that it would be a simple matter to assess disability related need and allocate the spaces accordingly, but as the employer doesn’t own the building or car park they can’t do this, and the owner has done the minimum required by providing three disabled spaces, one of which is used by an employee of a different company. I also didn’t realise until another poster corrected me, that the car park is open to the public so anyone with a BB is entitled to use any of the disabled spaces available.

It’s amazing that the few of you that think poor Lynda, don’t seem to care at all that she is bullying and inconveniencing Sue! So it’s ok for her to do that but then cry discrimination when the boot is on the other foot? If this lady had said she uses the bigger parking space because of her disability but doesn’t want to say why, I think most people would have accepted that and not had an issue with it, however, to say she wants it so people can’t see her arriving and leaving work!!!

Any reasonable adjustments required are to be made by the employer. Employers cannot pass that responsibility on to other employees. A needs assessment will not force Lynda to agree to use another toilet. It is the assessment of needs of an individual. Other people's needs are not taken into account.

Absolutely not what I’m saying at all. A formal needs based assessment for a reasonable adjustment arrangement would establish whether or not Lynda is reasonably able to use a standard toilet and if so, that reasonable adjustment may be as simple as agreeing to leave the accessible toilet for Sue in the event they both need the loo at the same time. Sue has no choice but to use the accessible toilet as the standard ones won’t accommodate a wheelchair. Lynda may have the option to use the standard one without difficulty and may be able to offer a solution. Clearly if there is a disability related need for Lynda to use the accessible toilet every time, then this is not a solution.

And I haven’t assumed anything. My suggestion was based on many years of working as a disability support worker for a charity and having seen similar solutions working with the cooperation of everyone involved. And I’ve been disabled all my life - I walk with difficulty and use a wheelchair so have an understanding of both sides of the argument thanks.

This is why people should be encouraged to join unions. So many employers and workers don't understand how employment and disability legislation works.

I think most people would have accepted that and not had an issue with it, however, to say she wants it so people can’t see her arriving and leaving work!!!

Linda hasn't said that she wants it so people can't see her arriving and leaving work. Other people aka gossips have "reliably informed" the OP that that's why she wants it. They haven't asked her, they just decided that.

She parked in the main car park before she needed a blue badge. She's only started parking down the side since her mobility got worse. It's hardly a huge assumption it's due to her disability but instead the office have jumped to "lazy disabled person"

Linda's manager hasn't actually asked her why she parks there. Other people in the office have but Linda hasn't told them why, probably because quite rightly she shouldn't have to tell all and sundry about her disability

Linda has gone to the OP to complain about being bullied. The OP still didn't try to understand Linda's needs she just told her to suck up the bullying

Absolutely what you did say;

Lynda is more mobile and clearly has the option to use a standard toilet if need be.

I agree. I think it’s most important for disabled people in particular to join their union. As a support worker I’ve seen so many instances of both blatant and subtle, direct and indirect discrimination aimed at disabled people in the workplace. So many employers misinterpret disability employment law and try to manipulate the Equality Act in particular to suit their own needs rather than the disabled person it’s designed to protect.

I remember one really sad case where an employer had told a disabled employee that they were not to leave work premises during their (unpaid) lunch hour. The reasoning was that lunchtimes were staggered and they were slow on their feet, so may not be able to get back on time, thereby disrupting other colleagues lunch times. The employee didn’t know their rights and complied, but then inevitably along came other demands in relation to time off for hospital appointments , sick leave, etc, and things got so difficult that in the end they resigned. Needless to say a constructive dismissal case followed, which was satisfyingly successful.

Lynda HASN'T said anything about why she uses the space

Office gossip says this is why

A possible issue might be that if Lynda might be able to use a standard bathroom if it has a sink in the cubicle, for example if she has a catheter or stoma, but otherwise needs to use a disabled toilet. That would also explain the anxiety about getting to the toilet, particularly if this is a new thing for her.

No one is saying that a needs assessment will force anyone to do anything. But here we have two disabled employees and limited resources in the form of one accessible toilet which they both need to use. So the needs of both should be taken into account. And yes, the reasonable adjustment is made by the employer, but in my experience this can’t be done effectively without the cooperation of other employees, as in a case where an employee had a severe nut allergy. The reasonable adjustment was agreed with other employees, who were required not to bring nuts onto the premises.

In the case of Lynda and Sue, a simple reasonable adjustment can be made if Lynda is able to reasonably use the standard loo and agrees to do so in the event of them both needing the toilet at the same time. No one is forced to do anything they’re not capable of. And it also needs to be stressed that if the employer can show that despite exploring every avenue there is no solution, then that’s where their responsibility ends. The key word here is ‘reasonable’.

Nope. One line taken out of context. Here’s what I actually said:

No, it requires a proper needs based assessment of whether ‘reasonable adjustment’ in this instance could just be a simple agreement on Lynda’s part to use the standard loo if she and Sue need to use the loo at the same time. Lynda is more mobile and clearly has the option to use a standard toilet if need be. Sue doesn’t have that option because the standard toilet won’t accommodate her wheelchair. If Lynda can reasonably use the standard loo in this scenario then the solution is simple.

I didn’t for one moment suggest that they press ahead with asking Lynda to agree to use the standard loos in this scenario based on past observations, but clearly as a result of a needs based assessment. Note the use of the words ‘could’, ‘if’ ‘reasonably’ and ‘agreement’. None of which suggests forcing anyone to do anything, but rather coming to a mutual agreement to provide a solution that works for everyone.

There are 3 types of reasonable adjustments organisations have to make to help you access things more easily.
People and organisations should:

• change a rule or way of doing things - for example the hours you have to work, an application process or how they contact you
• change a physical feature of a building - for example steps, toilets or lighting
• give you equipment or help - for example if you need induction loops for your hearing aid, a screen reader or support to fill in a form

What makes a change ‘reasonable’ depends on your specific situation - for example, how much the change will help you and the size of the organisation responsible for the change.

That is the guideline on reasonable adjustments. It is solely between the individual and the employer. It does not involve anyone else. The employer cannot ask one disabled person to disadvantage themselves for the sake of another employee.

Your example about the nut allergy is not something that is agreed with other employees. It involves creating a policy to prevent contamination. It becomes a rule that employees must abide by, or they will face disciplinary action. In the OP's case, they can not create a policy that says "if Sue needs the loo, Lynda must use a different one."

I'm glad. Many employers and managers don't take this stuff seriously. They think they can just wing it. Until the shit hits the fan.

I'm quite disappointed that someone who worked for a disabled charity is allowing what someone could PREVIOUSLY do as an indicator of what they can NOW do

And definitely seems to be suggesting that an accessible toilet is mostly for those in a wheelchair and other needs can only use it if someone with a wheelchair isn't and that the wheelchair user should get first call....

If lunch is unpaid, but within working hours, does it still count as a time where you can't choose who you socialise with if work aren't organising it? Seems a bit odd to me. I agree re coffee runs within the morning shift, for example, but on an unpaid lunch break, surely you can go out of the building with anyone you like, and not Lynda if you don't like her. Is that really bullying?

I didn’t for one moment suggest that they press ahead with asking Lynda to agree to use the standard loos in this scenario based on past observations, but clearly as a result of a needs based assessment

I didn't say you did

I said this:

You seem to think someone with a progressive disability using a standard toilet once, awhile ago, is evidence that they "can" use a standard toilet every time

Because you said this:

Lynda is more mobile and clearly has the option to use a standard toilet if need be.

There's no other context required with the comment I made in the first place. You appear to think I was saying something about your talk about workplace assessments. I wasn't.

If everyone in the office is being invited bar Lynda then, yes, management can step in if Lynda says she feels she is being deliberately left out...

In this thread there are links to actual cases where workplaces have been successfully sued for deliberately excluding employees even when not an official workplace outing

Absolutely, I completely agree

Clearly you can’t be wrong and will argue black is white, go right ahead! Not worth the energy! I bet your a ‘Lynda’ at heart.

Yes its bullying if its everyone but one person but it's also not entirely what the OP describes, she describes lunch orders

If someone ordered lunch in for everyone apart from you would you not feel excluded and bullied? Even if everyone is still paying for their lunch it's still an organised, collective activity which deliberately excludes one person.

That is bullying