Is this discriminatory? Job and driving requirement

[Mygardenandme]

Civil service job. Offices throughout England and Wales. HEO. Office based but can be based at any office.

99% of travel in our dept is done by train and you are strongly discouraged from driving. Although you have to justify any travel at all.

I spoke with the person doing the job atm and it involves lots of meetings with people from all the offices from AA to SEO. There are some external meetings but they are on Teams or very rarely in a central location. All the meetings are planned in advance.

The current (small) project team has staff throughout England so most meetings are on Teams. When they do rarely meet face to face, most travel by train. Im not in an office where any of them are based.

So clearly there is a need for travel. Although not as much as first implied and generally done by train. The job advert states that a driving license is essential. I have epilepsy so no driving license.

I'm going to speak with the team leader to see if I can still apply. If not, I'm not going to do anything about it. It's quite a visible team and I like working in the dept so dont want to get reputation.

YANBU - A driving license might be preferred but as long as someone is willing to travel by train, there is no reason they cant do the job. It is disability discrimination.

YABU - The job might be mainly Teams based but there is enough travel to make relying on public transport too risky. It's not disability discrimination because they can justify the driving license requirement.

I work in a community team in the NHS in a rural area where public transport is crap.

We've had to remove the driving licence requirement from job adverts as HR advises that is discriminatory. It's pretty much impossible to do the job without being able to drive.

Jobs that say that driving licenses, or even the ability to travel or attend an office, are essential things when they're absolutely not are all discriminatory.

Good luck having that mean anything to anyone besides who it impacts though. Disability discrimination is commonplace.

Well it is, but it is legal discrimination. Why do so many HR departments not understand the actual law?

Speak to them and see. When I was in a community nursing team our adverts always said driving licence/car essential, but we had staff that didn’t drive and took the bus/walked everywhere and the manager seemed fine with it even though it meant they could do fewer visits. If it’s not going to affect your ability to get places then I don’t see why it’ll be a problem.

My own job in the civil service has driving as essential. Even my provisional has expired, and not once, in the 8 years I've been in the job, have I been at a disadvantage.

I recently went to apply for a similar job, with less travel for a different dept. One of the requirements to even be eligible to apply was to be a holder of a driving licence. I wrote to them explaining my situation, and they said whilst the post in london might be suitable for non-drivers, it wouldn't be fair to other regions if they removed it for london and not them.

Made absolutely no sense whatsoever, so I wished them well.

I am an employment lawyer. This would only be lawful if they had a good reason for requiring a driving license and there was no other feasible workaround. If you could use trains and / or other forms of transport then your lack of driving licence shouldn’t rule you out

Your HR team are fucking idiots. No wonder so many have a fire reputation if this is the sort of incorrect advice they’re giving

Just apply for the job & argue why you know you can manage the travel requirements.
You'll tag yourself as annoying prospective employee if you insist on challenging this on discrimination grounds when you're not even in post and haven't even applied.

FWIW, I applied for a job that implied "driving license required" and then found out the guy I was replacing got everywhere by bus. I ended up cycling to most our meetings that were away from office site.

OP nobody on here can give you an answer. You’ll need to speak to them to see whether the meetings not accessible by public transport can be done in another way - you in a taxi, you via Teams or someone else goes.

How ridiculous

In my NHS dept we say you must be able to meet the travel requirements for the job.

Some people with disabilities may be eligible for funding towards a driver or taxis through Access to work.
So we don’t discriminate but an employee must be able to travel somehow

No driving license as a reasonable adjustment for your epilepsy sound fair, especially given the current travel arrangements.

I think that, given the travel and the preference for trains, it would be unreasonable of them to insist on a driving license.

My DH can’t drive for medical reasons, and obviously there are jobs he can’t do. Anything that involved travelling to lots of different customers/clients homes for example (for example, we had a British gas engineer at our house yesterday - that travel cannot be done on public transport because there’s a van full of tools and you’re going all over the place). But this job doesn’t seem like one he should be excluded from.

I've already said I'm not going down the discrimination route even if I had grounds (which it sounds like I do).

Surely I'd be more annoying if I wasted everyone's time by getting the job and then there turning out to be an actual reason why a driving license was essential meaning I cant do it? Or, it will come up and it will reflect poorly on me for not being honest.

Also, by speaking with the lead I will get a feel about how supportive he will be about travel arrangements. Just because everyone else uses the train, it doesnt mean he is happy about it.

I certainly think it's worth discussing. I'm in social work where having a driving licence used to be an essential criteria, and I've always known adjustments made for those who couldn't drive for medical reasons despite it not being a very practical job for reasonable adjustments (due to things like unexpected trips and going to places not covered by public transport)

In the last few years all councils I've worked at have removed the criteria, it's said to be to avoid discrimination - in particular we struggled to recruit graduates who had been unable to get lessons or driving tests with the covid backlog - though I believe it's more to do with local authorities signing up to be 'green' councils and because it means they don't have to provide any parking.

I used to work for the police (not a police officer) and there was a restructure and my job wasnt in the new structure. They didnt want to pay me redundancy so tried to make me take a job that involved regular travel in a very rural location (ie no reluable public transport). They said if I didnt take it, I would be "making myself redundant" and wouldnt get redundancy. They knew I wouldnt be able to do the new job. They were basically trying to make me take that job and then be able to sack me because I couldnt do it.

I got ACAS involved and started tribunal proceedings against them. We settled before it went to court. The irony is, I was originally quite happy to take redundancy but they ended up paying me 10x what my redundancy payment would have been.

I didnt push the discrimination aspect because I felt like I would have had to get a lawyer. I'm convinced I would have won more if I had.

Twats. 🤣

Completely. There are certain jobs I know I cant do. I'd love to work for the environment agency or there is a local nature reserve that would be my dream job but I just cant do it.

Knowing the CS recruitment process as well as I do, I would be 99% sure that someone has selected ‘yes’ to ‘Do applicants require a DL?’ without giving it much thought. If you ask the lead then they probably won’t even have realised it’s on there!
Definitely speak to them and find out why it says you need a DL. Unless it requires frequent travel to somewhere 50 miles from the nearest station they will be able to make it work.

Most definitely do not assume discrimination and not apply, it is far more likely to be incompetence 😂

I spoke to the lead. Apparently he'd prefer drivers because of the flexibility but not driving doesnt exclude me.

He said that there are early starts so as long as I am willing to catch the earliest train or stay the night before it isnt an issue. He did say that obviously the overnight stays need approval so I will need take that onto account however the team wont have an issue making eg morning meetings into afternoon so I can get there.

What I really liked though was that he was very honest about a few less positive aspects of the job. When Ive spoken to people about jobs before they've skimmed over the bad bits but he was very open and said he wanted me to know what the reality was. It was pretty much what I assumed.

So Ill be applying. Wish me luck!

So HR have got that wrong then.

I would imagine that having a DL would be less costly when reimbursing travel expenses. Would they supply a company vehicle or expect an employee use their own?

In the civil service they will supply a pool or hire car. Own car use is generally frowned upon. But it sounds like there's not a lot of travel and it's doable by train, which isn't always the case, eg needing to take lots of equipment, visit multple sites in a day or go to places that are not easily accessible by public transport.

But good luck OP. They've probably found that recruitment and retention is tricky because pay will be poor for the role and/or it's not a cosy regular hours flexible office job with lots of WFH that people seem to (wrongly) assume is ubiquitous in the Civil Service.

They are within their rights to require a driving licence for people who are able to have one. For those who cannot drive due to a disability, they need to make a reasonable adjustment (driver, pay for taxis, or only ask that person to travel to places they can safely reach by public transport).

Oh yes, the role in the private sector would pay significantly more than HEO wage.

I dont really WFH. Reluctantly I have to admit I am less distracted in the office. Plus, regardless of how hard I work, some of my work doesnt create much countable output iyswim. At least if Im in the office reading a printed document and my computer is "off", everyone can see that I am working. If I was at home, there would be no proof of that.

But then sometimes that just isnt possible/practical. Like with the NHS example above, driving is so integral to the role that not driving means you just cant do it. There are no "reasonable adjustments" that can be made.

I couldn't be a health visitor because I cant travel between locations effectively. Work cant give me less appointments in a day (discriminating against staff with driving licences) or pay for taxis for me.

A reasonable adjustment might be giving me a "patch" that is busable or if everyone in the team has 5 appointments a week that they normally so in 2 days, they may say I can do 1 appointment a day. Or stagger the appointments based on bus timetables etc.