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?

I’m not disputing that it remains voluntary in those circumstances. But at the same time an employer has a responsibility to make reasonable adjustment wherever possible, and if duties can be swapped around to accommodate the disabled person without changing the nature of the job, failure to consider that option means that the employer has failed to provide reasonable adjustment. And some of the best reasonable adjustments I’ve seen personally have involved creative thinking and flexibility, rather than intransigence.

No one has said otherwise. The fact is, unless your contract has set duties in it, your employer can move duties around without seeking your agreement. Consulting with the other employees is not part of the reasonable adjustment process. It just makes everyone feel like their opinion matters and therefore feel more positive about the changes.

Now, back to the OP, no reasonable adjustments process will require Lynda to agree to not using the disabled toilet when Sue needs it. That is not something "reasonable adjustments" has power over. It could only be a voluntary decision by Lynda which she can change her mind about at any time. She can not be made to do it, nor can she be penalised for not doing it.

My contract legally states I can refuse any work outside of my agreed

I am a disabled person.

I would not go to work for an organisation where my employment and accommodations hinge on a colleague’s good will, or where I’ve been set up to take the flack for change being forced on a colleague.

I would certainly never put up with a job where I was expected to discuss my toileting needs with anyone who is nosy enough to care, or be gossiped about because some ill informed people have decided I’m not disabled enough to park in a BB space.

FFS why the eye roll ?

Ooo a disabled person got a job?? And the able bodied people there were understanding?!! 🥰🤩

Consulting with the other employees is not part of the reasonable adjustment process. It just makes everyone feel like their opinion matters and therefore feel more positive about the changes.

Exactly so - better to be inclusive and foster good relations. That’s always been my experience with the better employers.

At no point have I or anyone else suggested that the reasonable adjustment would ‘require’ Lynda’s agreement not to use the disabled toilet when Sue needs it. That would be purely voluntary, assuming that Lynda could reasonably use a standard toilet in the first place - the assessment is designed to assess the needs of both, not to prioritise. And nowhere has it been suggested that she be forced into it or penalised for not doing it. The point is that in the absence of any other workable solution due to the employer not owning the premises, the solution is pretty much in the hands of Sue and Lynda to cooperate for their mutual benefit.

I’m disabled too. And I think you’ve completely missed the point of the whole discussion as well as clearly not understanding what the Equality Act is designed to achieve. And no one is expecting anyone to discuss toileting needs or any other aspect of their disability if they don’t want to. There is no legal requirement to disclose any aspect of disability to an employer, and an employer is not allowed to ask, even if the disability is blatantly obvious. But clearly some level of cooperation between the two disabled employees in this scenario is needed if the situation is to be resolved to their mutual benefit.

And I’m sorry but it’s a fact that disabled people are hugely under represented in the work place because of pre conceived ideas and misconceptions. And the last sentence in your post doesn’t help that situation. At all. It’s offensive to all those disabled people who have fought so hard to get anything like equal rights for the disabled enshrined in law, and so improve their standing in society and in the workplace.

At our work, there was five “disabled” spaces, three were smaller than the other two, and they were very close to the front doors.

it worked well for years, until a new employee started … she wanted/demanded the bigger spaces, and various upsets ensued.

It turned out, that because two of them walked with walkers, she thought her car may be scratched.

Anyhow, the company decided to do away with parking in front of the building, tables and chairs covered in pergolas with water features and motorcycle/cycle shed was built and security tells every car user what bay to park in.

Condescension is your forte isn’t it?

clearly not understanding what the Equality Act is designed to achieve

I understand what it says.

I understand how it is implemented.

I understand the context it operates within.

I understand how it is misinterpreted.

I understand how it is miss used.

And no one is expecting anyone to discuss toileting needs or any other aspect of their disability if they don’t want to.

If you rtft you will find that many posters have said that Lynda should discuss and provide evidence of her toileting needs in order to be ‘allowed’ to continue using the accessible toilet.

The same has been said about parking.

And I’m sorry but it’s a fact that disabled people are hugely under represented in the work place because of pre conceived ideas and misconceptions. And the last sentence in your post doesn’t help that situation. At all.

God forbid the difficult wheelchair lady not be ‘nice’ and ‘kind’ ay. Don’t let the ablists see me not being meek and grateful.

so improve their standing in society

Wtf did I just read?!

Clearly I can read

Because Lynda hasn't said anything. Office gossip has

Adjusting responsibilities and barring nuts from the office are not the same as telling a disabled person they have to use the standard facilities because they aren't in a wheelchair ...

No idea. Everything l say appears to offend you.

The idea that disabled people should present themselves in the ‘right’ way (seemingly ‘kind’, helpful, understanding and grateful no matter how we are treated), so that we can be acceptable to able bodied people and thereby “improve our standing in society” ought to be anathema to everyone.

No one is suggesting that they ‘tell’ a disabled person that they have to do anything. And it’s not disability top trumps. It’s about need, and finding a mutually agreeable solution. And since the employer doesn’t own the building so can’t allocate appropriate parking spaces or add to the accessible facilities, the solution is largely in the hands of the two people affected - Sue and Lynda. The suggestion was that if it was reasonable for Lynda to use the standard toilets and she was agreeable, then she could perhaps leave the accessible toilet free for Sue in the event that they needed to go at the same time - thereby recognising that Sue has no alternative other than to use the only accessible toilet. That is very different to your interpretation.

Quite a lot of people seem to be suggesting Lynda be told she isn't to use the disabled loo because Sue can only use that and Lynda can use a standard loo (which BTW we don't know is even the case!)

That’s not what’s being suggested here. And perhaps ‘standing’ was the wrong word to use in this context. ‘Participation’ in society would probably be a better way of saying it. The Equality Act was drafted in consultation with disabled people to ensure it reflected their needs. It’s meant to enshrine in law the protected characteristics of disabled people and thereby protect against discrimination and enable participation in society without being disadvantaged by their disability.

It’s based on the social model of disability which says that people are not just disabled by their physical or mental impairments, but also by barriers in society. Barriers can be physical, like buildings not having accessible toilets. Or they can be caused by people's attitudes to difference, like assuming disabled people can't do certain things. When those barriers are removed, people can work towards being as independent as they can be and be included and equal in society. The social model puts the focus on the individual and their needs and not on their condition and is intended to provide a level playing field where disabled people are not disadvantaged by their condition, and the hope is that this will help to develop positive attitudes in society.

it’s not about disabled people being grateful or any of the other things you suggest. It’s about equality. The Equality Act provides for reasonable adjustment in the workplace to achieve the aims of the social model - removing the barriers to participation in the workplace, thereby mitigating the disadvantages of the disability or health condition. What it can’t legislate for however, is the unfailing ability of people to be shitty to each other, disabled or not.

That isn't what she said at all. We don't all have to agree with each other and sing kumbaya because we're disabled but let's not put words in each other's mouths. There are enough groups trying to talk over us without us doing it to ourselves.

No one has suggested that Lynda be ‘told’ she isn’t to use the disabled loo. That would be illegal - Lynda has as much right to use it as Sue. What people are suggesting is that a needs assessment be carried out to see if Lynda can reasonably use the standard facilities. If she can, the suggestion is that if she’s agreeable, she could use the standard loo in the event that they both need to go at the same time - thereby allowing Sue access to the only toilet facility she can use. That’s absolutely not the same as telling Lynda she isn’t to use the disabled loo. It’s a difficult situation because the employer is limited as to what they can do as they don’t own the building. So to a certain extent any solution would likely rely on cooperation between Sue and Lynda and would involve respecting each others’ needs.

Yep. This. It’s about levelling the playing field and minimising the further disabling barriers created by society. Disabled people have fought long and hard for the rights we have now. There are those who would like nothing better than to see us back inside the institutions of the past - unseen, unheard and unrepresented. We don’t need to provide them with the ammunition to do that.

Love the username by the way !

I spent twenty years in a professional capacity as a disability support worker. I think l understand the differing models of disability and the principles of the Equality Act. My explanation of the social model may not be the best but l was aiming for a level you would understand, so if you’re up to GCSE level text books then l’ve clearly hit my mark. Not sure why you’re trolling me but l’m not engaging with this any more. It’s pointless and derailing.

What am I missing here, how is "suggesting" Lynda use the other toilet any more acceptable than telling her to use the other toilet? They do not get to decide that. That is not the purpose of a needs assessment. It is there for the person to tell them what help they need, not what help they don't need. If Lynda thinks the accessible toilet helps her, then that is that. It's not for anyone else to say, "Well, actually, we don't think you need to use it every time, therefore we suggest you use the other toilet when it's more convenient for Sue." No way.

Exactly

Any suggestion that Lynda doesn't need the accessible toilet because she's not in a wheelchair (which has definitely been made) and that she can use a normal toilet is akin to telling her she can't use it

@ButWhatAboutTheBees@HollyKnight I agree.

It’s not ok to decide that one disability trumps another and that one disabled person should in any way be expected to sacrifice their needs for another because there are insufficient facilities for both of them.

The idea that it would in any way solve the problem if Lynda just used the normal bathroom when it was convenient for Sue (even if it was altered to accommodate her needs, which there is no guarantee it could be) is really shortsighted, and the fact that so many disabled posters have internalised the idea that they should minimise their needs, and put up with being an afterthought is really sad.

The question of IF Lynda is using the toilet to purposely bully Sue is an entirely different issue.

Feel free to report any of my posts you feel are trolling you or break talk guidelines in any way, I’m sure they will be removed.

I’ve requested my last post be deleted because I realised I’d matched the tone of the posts it was in response to.