What has always surprised me every time the budget has come in is just how much single people and childless couples in the UK are ignored, for the sake of those who have children. If anyone doesn't understand where I'm coming from then they should be aware that most single people aren't entitled to working tax credit if they earn a certain amount but you can be sure they'll be paying towards someone's child tax credits, no matter what their income is. This I find disgusting and I'm so sick of being a white British citizen who's worked all their life and made decisions not to settle and have children until they have enough income coming in to keep a family. This used to be the traditional expectation in this country but clearly not now. 200,000 in skilled occupations left the country last year in search of a better life. I can't see this figure going down. This is only a small country and with a growing population it will further sink under the weight of those who just don't do anything but still need to be kept. We don't need more children, no country does but we do need people who can work and keep the system going, but they are leaving and why should they stay? The government should be encouraging those who only have themselves to rely on and not those who will always need benefits. The former would be a much cheaper option for the government anyway, clearly.

Hi all, I have been lurking on this forum for a while and read some excellent advice however my situation seems unusual and has been troubling me for months, It’s a bit of a long one. I began working for a company in Sept 2012 after a pretty rigorous recruitment process and was offered a permanent part time position subject to a usual 6 month probation period. All seemed to be going well, I got on with my department, involved myself with planning and running extra activities and had a positive appraisal meeting in Dec where my line manager asked me if I would take on more hours. I agreed and In Jan 2013 my hours were increased to full time . However I discovered I was pregnant over Christmas and perhaps foolishly decided to tell my line manager before my probation ended as he was pressuring me to commit to projects later in the year that I would not be able to do. I felt confident doing this as I had no reason to believe my performance was ever in doubt. The attitude of my line manager changed immediately, he questioned me there and then about whether I would take maternity leave, how long for, would I definitely return etc and how this would make his life very difficult later in the year. Just over a week later I was called into a meeting with the manager and told I had ‘failed’ my probation due to concerns about my performance and how I didn’t seem to ‘fit in’. I could have been given my months notice there and then but they asked me to stay on in the same capacity for a further 5 months which seems at odds with their ‘concerns’. The manager denied knowing I was pregnant. I realize that I could have been got rid of with no warning at any time during my first 2 years but am convinced I am only being ‘let go’ because my pregnancy would cause problems and hassle for my line manager who was the source of the apparent concerns about me and the end of the probation period gave them the excuse to do it. I wish now I had made more fuss at the time the decision was made (early feb) but was shocked and scared about stress created if I complained (my line manager can be quite aggressive when challenged) and wanted to secure my SMP which would be paid if I stayed on . Management also tried to placate me by saying they would give me a reference if I basically melted away. However the longer it has gone on the more aggrieved I feel about my treatment and the fact I will have the stress of having to find a new similarly paid job in a difficult area with a young baby. Basically do I have a case for unfair dismissal due to sex discrimination. Thanks for any advice.

Hi everyone, I am new to this and really hope someone can help. I am self representing because I live mainly abroad and this would cause a problem to most lawyers/trainees/volunteers. On my ET1 I ticked the Age Discrimination box, simply because I could not see any other options that applied, but proceeded to state that I believed I had been discriminated against due to Age and/or Part-time hours. The Respondent replied on the ET3 that there was no jurisdiction because I had not listed and dated the alleged discrimination incidents and that those mentioned predated my ET1. The ET has now sent a list of orders which include one for me to provide a schedule of every act of discrimination, harassment, victimisation and disadvantaging work practices, plus comparators if I intend to rely on them, with dates, who did or said what to whom and where. This has confused me because I am not sure why the judge has included all these categories and how they apply to my case. I am hoping someone can help me as I am feeling a bit overwhelmed right now. This is the brief summary of the story: -Until Dec 2009 full-time senior manager. -Dec 2009 Part-time hours requested and granted. Relocated abroad with husband. Started making monthly trips back to UK to work 4 consecutive days a month. -Within months of becoming part-time, one to one meetings stopped, email communications stopped, everyone in the unit relocated but me, I had to e-mail or phone my manager to offer her an update each month, she was more and more dismissive and sharp with me on the phone as if I bothered her by contacting her, I would not be informed of junior members of the team starting and leaving even though I liaised with the team as part of my role, I felt alienated, left out and humiliated, listening to other departments senior colleagues jesting about why I was the only senior team member away from the management team, but did not complain as I didn't want to suffer the consequences of that action. -Mid 2010 my financial situation took a turn for the worse, my husband had to return to the UK for work, I asked if I could increase my hours but this was denied due 'lack of funds'. -Mid 2011 I discovered a new senior manager appointment, same area of expertise, full time position, younger person, less experienced and qualified had been offered the job 'via the back door', I wasn't told about the vacancy coming up or being due to be advertised (standard practice but not policy) -Nov 2012 I was told my job was in the latest redundancy pool and given 30 days consultation notice, the consultation paper stated clearly that 2/3 of my duties had been reallocated to other staff in 2010 (?) and the remaining 1/3 was going to be reallocated to someone else. -Dec 2012 I submitted a grievance when I discovered that someone younger and on a much lower grade had just started and that she was going to take over some of my duties. My grievance stated that I felt the redundancy had been engineered and that I had been discriminated against due to age and/or part-time status (making me redundant cost them a miserly sum despite my high salary as I was extremely part-time and just 4 months away form the age at which they would have had to make up my pension benefits shortfall). The grievance was declined as it 'referred largely to redundancy'. -Jan 2013 Compulsory redundancy advised. 3 months notice given. -Feb 2013 ET1 submitted in a hurry after reading about the time limits. Redundancy appeal also submitted. -April 2013 Internal appeal heard. Redundancy going ahead. Paid up to 30/04 plus redundancy pay. No income now until I reach minimum pension benefits age (in 4 months I am entitled to a much-reduced early pension at age 50). My question is, how do I compile the schedule requested in the order? Are there elements of harassment and/or victimisation I had not considered before? Part-time discrimination doesn't show anywhere on the ET1, is it a protected act? How do I insert it in the schedule? I cannot find any help with this in the copious ET guides and advice forums on the internet...Please assist if you can.

Hi I have recently been having problems with my employer. I have been HIV+ for 4 years now and my employer has known all the time. I have consistently had higher than average absence due to being more susceptible to colds, infections etc. in January my team manager set me a target of no more than 6 days off across a three month period, which was an 'informal improvement plan' Whilst I didn't see the need for the plan to be in place, I pretty much agreed to adhere to it and indeed I have. I have since had two days (this tuesday and wednesday) off absent due to a viral throat infection. My team manager has today now said that my absence is unsatisfactory and I should not take any more than 12 days off in a year (the trigger for a person without a disability is 10 days) and the previous plan is no longer on the table and I am not to have any more time off in the next three months. I feel this is unreasonable in terms of a 'reasonable adjustment'. i don't take the decision to be off sick lightly and go in when I am under the weather etc. What do you guys think? Any test cases you know of?

Hi,wonder if anyone could advise me on this one.. I work for a small family business in Scotland..I recently had 5 weeks off work(first absence for 3 years) when I was hospitalised by a couple of asthma attacks..Checked my bank account to discover I had only been paid statuary sick pay,(nothing wrong with that I hear you say) Except when my colleague was off sick last year,coincidently for about 5 weeks ,l I know he was paid in full. Obviously I'm a bit miffed about this but have said nothing as I enjoy working there and didn't want to rock the boat.Unfortunately it's niggling away at me and I'm not sure how long I can bottle it up. It's not just the financial issue..it's actually left me feeling like an unvalued and unappreciated employee.. Any advice on possible course of action open to me and likely outcome ? Thanks in advance David

We have used our babysitter, who is 20 years old, for the past 2 years. We are Foster Carers and the children we care for really love their sitter. About 6 weeks ago, following CRB checks which came back clear, we were told under no circumstances could we continue using our sitter by the placing Council authority. It turns out that our sitter suffered depression and (maybe) self-harmed after the death of her step-dad, and instead of visiting her GP for help/advice, she approached a counsellor on/line. This meant that her details were not confidential, and as she is still undergoing counselling and on anti-depressants, we cannot use her any more. The children are heart-broken, and to be honest, her babysitting was a great help to her. Are they able to do this, and how can we help her? To make matters worse, she is now at Uni on a teaching course and all this may mean she cannot continue her course - she is heartbroken.

Hi I currently have a problem with a pay rise that i should have received a long time ago. I work in a small team but i currently earn less than the others. I have been told various things i need to achieve before i get my rise. I have hit all the targets that have been asked of me and new ones are added every time i go back. I have just recently hit the last targets and was told i won't be getting a pay rise and they can't say why.... Is this classed as being discriminative?? I have worked 10 years more in the company than others and my work is more productive. Yet i'm still being refused a pay rise to match others. I was promised on each occasion of the meetings that i'd get a rise if i hit the set targets. My boss ignores all my emails requesting my review meetings. So overall i've worked at the company longest, work faster than others paid more in the same job (I have statistics to back everything up) Constantly being denied a pay rise i was promised and being ignored whenever i raise my issues. Is this right and is there anything i can do? Thank you

Hi, I need some advice. I arranged for myhermes to deliver a parcel to a buyer who purchased from me on ebay. After nearly two weeks of the tracking information being all messed up (attempted delivery,returned to depot etc repetitively) I sent them an email a few days ago to express my disappointment and SHOCKINGLY received this response: "Good afternoon Thank you for your email. Unfortunately we are unable to deliver your parcel to the address given we have spoken to the courier and the courier states it is a travellers site and has incurred various incidents when delivering previously. This parcel will now be sent back to you please allow a few days for delivery. Apologises for the inconvenience caused. Kind Regards xxxx xxxxxx MyHermes Support advisor Hermes Parcelnet Limited. Registered in England & Wales No. 3900782. Registered office: Capitol House. This email (which includes any files/attachments transmitted with it) is confidential and is intended solely for those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Hermes Parcelnet Ltd. Do i have a case for discrimination? The buyer/site recieved normal royal mail etc and just feel this is terrible. After the email stated they are refusing to deliver, the buyer then informed me that they delivered it this evening (obviously, realising that i may possibly raise an issue/case about this!) Where do i stand?

Hi all, I am seeking help from everyone. Recently I had to get lots of quotes for car insurance and they were all pretty high. I found out that the reason for this is due to my credit file and what credit risk I am deemed to be. The insurance companies/brokers look at your credit file and then decide if you are a good or bad threat. If you are a bad threat then your premium will be higher than those with a good credit file. This I feel is discrimination and an unfair pricing policy. The insurance companies/brokers will look at your file to decide what premium is to be applied but do not reflect that you have made monthly payments without fail back on to your credit file. So in one hand they use your bad profile to exploit you and on the other they do not reflect your ability to pay back the monthly installments. Even if you decide to pay in full on a one off payment you are still hit with a higher premium, the only difference being that you don't have to pay interest for paying monthly. Any suggestions on who I can contact in the media to highlight this problem? Please keep your suggestions relating to this problem.

Hi, I really hope someone can offer me some advice please! First, a bit of background: I have a somewhat difficult relationship with management at my workplace, I think I am seen as 'trouble'. Partly because I have an illness that falls under disability rules so I have higher absence than they would like, but also because I successfully stuck up for myself when they have attacked me, with the result that many of my colleagues have asked me to attend disciplinary hearings with them and/or have joined the union that helped me. Recently there has been a bit of an undercurrent of 'niggling' at me - picking fault with my performance, falsely accusing me of making inappropriate comments,'accidentally' dismantling the adjustments to my desk so I have to find someone to help me reassemble them when I come in... low level stuff, but to me it feels like borderline harassment and it is unsettling and upsetting. Today I had to go and attend an occupational health assessment. The reason given in my 'invitation' to attend was a general 'so we can see how we can help you'. The reason given by occ health was 'to see whether you are fit to work early shifts again' (I currently do not work early shifts as a reasonable adjustment) but I think the real reason was to try and make trouble for me. This was my third OHS assessment and the third different company. The last two were pretty understanding and even helpful. This one took place in our office and was horrendous... At the time the appointment was arranged I had not had any absence since the previous September although I went off sick on Monday and so actually was off after all when I attended. What I have is a condition called bile acid malabsorption and an unspecified digestive disorder that may just be really disruptive IBS, but tests are still ongoing. But I get severe pain, bloating, chronic diarrhoea and acid reflux. And I also have a chronic anal fissure due to constant diarrhoea, which I have had several surgeries for but my surgeon says now cannot be considered for surgery until the underlying health issues are identified and treated. TMI, I know, sorry for having to share that. TBH I am getting a bit fed up of having to share it with more and more people every time my bosses fancy humiliating me. Anyway... Firstly, the occ health claimed I had said I was suffering from... well, I don't know what. I had literally never heard of whatever it was I am supposed to have said. So straight away she accused me of inventing a diagnosis. Then she asked me to tell her about the consultants I am attending with and what tests I had had, but kept interrupting me with the result that she didn't actually hear half of the medical history at all. At one point when I mentioned having an X-Ray she told me I was being ridiculous and that they wouldn't do an X-Ray for digestive issues, but I'm pretty sure it'll be on file somewhere...Then started telling me that if I hadn't had such-and-such a test then the consultant probably didn't really think there was anything wrong with me! She called the consultant's office at one point to question why the next appointment was so far off. At that point we discovered that a referral I was waiting for - to see a dietician - had not been made by my consultant, and his notes said I was going to ask my GP to refer me. So then she accused me of 'lying' about the referral. She discounted my symptoms, told me I was 'too fat' to have chronic diarrhoea, and said that in her opinion I just need to lose weight. I tried to explain that my weight has ballooned as a result of the illness as the fissure causes pain on exercise and because continence issues mean I am scared to walk. She ignored this and started to lecture me on a healthy diet. I tried pointing out that because of the bile acid malabsorption I had been on an ultra-low-fat diet until recently, but she ignored me. She told me that continence issues weren't relevant, partly because I had acknowledged that this has improved lately (it has, but that doesn't stop you worrying) and partly because I work in a friendly office. Like somehow it'd be okay to s**t myself in public because I get on okay with my co-workers?!?!?! She finished by telling me I needed to accept that illness is the way it is and make the best of things. Which is what I've been trying to do, attending work when I am in no fit state half the time and just trying to hang on to the smallest modicum of dignity and self-respect. Before I left she got me to fill in a form saying she could speak to my GP about me this afternoon. She said if I didn't sign I'd appear unco-operative and that might be held against me - as if I was a criminal!!! After I left I called and told my doctor why I'd signed and she said to call HR and withdraw my consent and that she would decline to speak to them. Anyhow, occ health reckons I'm okay to work mornings, she considers that it is no longer bad enough to constitute a disability and that she is reporting to my employer that I lied about diagnosis and about the dietician referral, even thought I didn't. Which is fine, whatever, I've got no energy left to fight it anymore. They've won, I guess. The union said they don't necessarily need the truth, as long as they've got a report that appears to back them up. I'll get booted out, and end up on benefits because who'd give me a job now? I just don't know what to do. Is there anything I can do at all? Many thanks for your help, and even for reading all of this.

Hi, I will try and keep this as short as possible. I recently undertook a role at a business as a senior case manager and was put on a probation of 26 weeks and in the first couple of weeks was given some serious and time-tight targets to hit with end dates, in some cases I have not been able to meet those targets due to the fact that case work from other members of staff have not been handed over (in one instance, 4 weeks after my deadline date to have delivered that target and what I was given was incomplete) The office is a shambles with no/little procedures in place and documents and so I have had to spend the time getting these in place (not on target setting) to be able me to actually work towards my other targets and I made reference in my first review paper to that effect which was the reasoning behind some of my missed targets due to poor processes in place and incompleteness of work by others before me. The review went appalling, not on my side I was pleasant but obviously upset throughout, to the point that my manager stormed out of the meeting saying my comments were unprofessional to lay cause with other employees! He then placed this in his review paper the day after, threw it at me and told me to sign the review as unsatisfactory but was not prepared to discuss further as I didnt agree with it (foolishly I signed it but feel this was under duress). I then recieved an letter stating I had another 2 weeks to hit those failed targets, I was offered no support or training to meet them just a new deadline, needless to say I have not been able to meet them again but have delivered some. I have a contract stating (one month notice on my side) I am due to work 37 hours per week (with up to 3 hours overtime permitted) - since I started I have consistently worked closely on average to 55 per week and not been paid the overtime element nor have I opted out of the working time regs 48 hours ruling (think this is correct?) - despite verbally raising the concern over the hours, I was told to 'get on with it - its expected of you as part of the role, no-one works to 37 hours here!!) I had unforeseen medical issue for my daughter which resulted in hospital surgery and was made to take annual leave for the appointment, whereas other members of staff (fixed holidays) can take the days off and be paid for them with no impact on their annual entitlement yet I was angrilily challenged about why I never mentioned this at interview and "how much more time are you expecting to take off with this?"...I didnt know, it was only after 5 weeks of starting!! To date, I have had no formal induction including health and safety elements...fire exits, procedures etc which I have had to find out myself - is this legal? The upshot is I have been given a letter (bring work colleague/TU rep etc...) with you for a meeting with HR a week next Friday citing various missing targets and "other minor concerns" (some of which have never even been mentioned to me as issues and I feel I am being 'stitched up' since his wife now appears to be waiting in the wings for a promotion!) I have been told that I may be dismissed due to unsatisfactory performance and since told to refrain from coming into work (apparently to give me time to review the contents of the letter and digest... but stated I will be paid for this week and up to the hearing date (why would I assume otherwise?).... (before leaving I had to hand back all my company property including access badge, passwords, laptop, mobile and car keys etc) which seems to me as though the decision has already been made. If I attend then I know what the outcome is going to be and besides I dont feel I can work for him any longer and my doctor has since signed me off with work related stress, I know I will be entitled per my contract to one weeks notice - but if I fail to attend the meeting (advice of doctor)- can they withold this payment i.e turn failure to attend into gross misconduct? If they reschedule my hearing - should I be paid for it? Should I just send the note in and nothing more? Should I not even bother attending at all and save my time, petrol and dignity - knowing the outcome already? (would be my personal preference!) Should I send the note in and a covering letter explaining inability on medical grounds to attend and request a new date or indeed offer my responses to the allegations in the hearing letter? Is there any recourse to the issues around, induction, overtime, hours or holidays?

I need help please. I am claiming for disability discrimination at the tribunal. Unison decided not to represent me because their legal advice stated that I had little prospects of success; however if the tribunal where to decide that the items in my claim amount to a continuing act the my chance improve to more that 53%. Anyhow I got the sense that Unison lawyer are rubbish and do anything they can to turn down cases so as to safeguard the single yearly lump-sum they get from unison. I have suffered from long term work related stress and other chronic ailments that are aggravated by stress. I was bullied at work by my supervisor which resulted in work related stress, depression and worsening of my chronic illness. In my grievance I requested a change of department as my relationship with management had broken down and was causing me mental health problems and deterioration in my physical health. I have a heart problem and take beta-blockers that make me tired and impact on my ability to carry out my duties. I have since moved to a new job and cut down my working hours from full-time to part-time (2 days a week). The responded in my case has stated that they did not discriminate against me because their Occupational Health adviser did not recommend reasonable adjustments because of my disability but because the relationship between myself and my managers had broken down, although the report mentions work related stress and my other health ailments and how the stress has impacted on my ability to work. Now how do I challenge the responds assertions?

Hi I am writing on behalf of my Son-In-Law who has just been sacked. He is putting together a grevance against 3 of his peers, as well as an appeal against his dismissal. The questions he needs answering are: His company was taken over by another company and he was made to re-apply for the managerial position he allready had, this was by way of an interview and exam, he failed the exam by 1 point and also was told that he didn't have the relevant experience to remain in that role as manager, therfore he was moved sideways but retained the same salary, the person that got his position didn't take any exam initially but was given the position, he later took the exam after my Son-in-Law complained about the discrimination, under different conditions than my Son-In-Law did, and he had the General Manager with him, locked in a room whilst the exam was taking place, scoring 96%?!?!. On that basis we feel that there was discrimination against him? Secondly, my Son-In-Law spoke to his General Manager, and indicated to him that he was thinking about putting in a greivance about the Regional Manager, later in the day his Line Manager spoke to him and said that he had heard from the General Manager about the greivance and was it true, and also that the Regional Manager had got to know about it from the General Manager, this caused my Son-In-Law to retract the greivance. Is this breaking confidentiality These we feel are just 2 of the reasons why my Son-In-Law has been dismissed, there are a lot more fabrication of evidence and discrimination details in his appeal but I don't need to list them for now. I would like for someone to give thier opinion on the 2 points above though. Cheers Derek

Hi, My husband has been off sick for just over 2 years. 10 months ago he was signed 'may be fit to work' with restrictions by his GP and his employer's OHD. However, the company (a huge multi-national) have flatly refused to allow him back to work and say that the restrictions laid out by the OHD make it impossible for them to make reasonable adjustments. He's now on £0 salary as his OSP ceased and his ESA is about to be stopped because when he's assessed by them next week, they'll say he's fit to work, which he is. However for the first 15-18 months of his sick leave he was physically disabled by a Conversion/Dissociative Disorder and suffered symptoms of a catastrophic stroke, which has required months of rehabilitation with speech and language therapists, physios etc. He just filed an ET1 against his company for disability discrimination and failing to make reasonable adjustments under the EqA. But he has an uncommon complaint and I'm wondering if the Equality Act recognise Conversion/Dissociative Disorder as a disability for employment purposes? Grateful for any advice x

Hello everyone, Firstly I would like to state my post is a request for opinions on matters relating to the likely interpretation of the Equality Act law in terms of my situation, and consequently the potential for an Employment Tribunal to be successful or not. I was particularly hoping someone with experience of employment law issues in disability discrimination, in particular Autistic Spectrum Disorders, would be able to offer some advice. The law is open to a large amount of interpretation, and Autistic conditions are largely misunderstood and misinterpreted by the general population - making this issue somewhat more complex than normal. I have Asperger's Syndrome. I have no doubts whatsoever this will be considered a disability under section 6 and the relevant schedule 1 of the act. Cases such as Hewett V Motorola and Isles V Ealing Council both establish this to be the case (was going to link to these but cannot add links due to having under 20 posts.) I recently applied for a job under a guaranteed interview for disabled people scheme. As reasonable adjustments at interview I requested that I be provided the questions in writing prior to interview, and the interview panel be made aware of my condition and the nature of my difficulties. These requests were met and a set of questions provided. Although shortly after a new set of questions replacing the old set were provided, and the new set included questions on competencies not covered in the original questions, including team work and customer appreciation. As my condition primarily affects social interaction and communication, it is obvious I would have difficulties with these skills. Post interview feedback indicated that while my 10 minute technical presentation and technical skills for the position were considered good, lack of evidence of team work and customer appreciation were the two reasons for which I was rejected. I would argue that a reasonable adjustment would have been to consider these skills as meeting expectations, assuming reasonable adjustments could be made in the position itself to accommodate those difficulties. This is based on a tribunal recommendation in the case of Hewett V Motorola - Hewett was working for Motorola and given an appraisal ranking of SI (Some Improvement) as he was criticised as being over-sensitive to banter which is a result of his disability. One recommendation of the employment tribunal was that a reasonable adjustment would have been to modify his appraisal ranking to Meeting Expectations, due to this issue relating to his disability. In the case of Isles V Ealing Council see the quote below. However, one difference between that case and my case is the respondent explicitly referred to his disability when suggesting reasonable adjustments could not be made relating to certain competencies in regard of his condition. I would infer from this that in recruitment a reasonable adjustment would be to consider features relating to a disability as meeting expectations, assuming reasonable adjustments can be made to accommodate those difficulties. For example, a profoundly deaf person applying for a job as a sound engineer may not be able to perform the duties required of the job. Whereas a deaf person applying for a job in an office may benefit from a sign language interpreter and still be able to carry out duties required of the job. Then we move on to consideration of what is a reasonable adjustment. For example, in many organisations a sign language interpreter may not be considered a reasonable adjustment, due to the organisation's resources and size. I would argue that if an employer offers to provide a sign language interpreter at interview at their cost (as they did in this instance), they are aware of the difficulties likely to be encountered by a deaf person - and are able to meet adjustments required - and consider such adjustments reasonable within their organisation. Clearly my needs are different to that of a deaf sign language user. However, I would argue the effect of my condition in relation to colleagues and customers is likely to be similar. If a deaf person were posed questions on these issues, they too might find offering good examples of these skills at interview difficult compared with a candidate without their difficulties. I therefore would argue that... My disability would be considered a disability. Changing questions is suggestive of indirect discrimination under S19. Refusal to offer a position on the basis of competencies relating to disability when reasonable adjustments were possible, is suggestive of direct discrimination under S13. Reasonable adjustments, required under S20, for the position itself in relation to my disability were not adequately considered. Adjustments as required were reasonable and other similar adjustments were considered reasonable by the employer. A reasonable adjustment at interview would have been to consider competencies relating to difficulties arising from my disability as meeting expectations, so long as those competencies would be likely to be overcome with a reasonable adjustment. I therefore feel, dependent on responses to questions in response to my request for information under section 138 an Employment tribunal would be justified. Even though I would likely find the process difficult due to my disability and would have no legal support as legal aid is not possible and I have little money. My aim is not to procure compensation, but to try help prevent people with atypical neurological conditions like Asperger Syndrome, having to endure discrimination - and loss of dignity through repeated unemployment despite good ability to do certain jobs. And if not to raise awareness of such conditions, at least in the organisation to which I applied. And also maybe to set some sort of precedent about the legal status of the Equality Act in relation to such situations. Would an employment tribunal case set a binding legal precedent for future cases? I am nearly 31 and have never managed to get a paid job of any kind, and I think this is disgusting when I have a First Class Honours degree and a Masters - I am clearly of some benefit in the work place but continually hit this brick wall with decisions not to employ me being consistently related to my condition. Even in unskilled positions where you would not expect adept ability at team work to be particularly important like shelf stacking. I am fed up of being treated in this manner and really want some way to work to earn my own money, even if it is for minimum wage. Had I been interviewed for University and subject to the same assessments I would likely have never achieved a First Class degree. I just want to be considered in terms of my ability to do the job (which the big part is the technical side) without being hindered by my disability when compared to other candidates. It is clear this is happening when I am rejected due to reasons relating to my disability. Thanks in advance for any help. Particularly those with knowledge of employment law issues in disability discrimination - or knowledge of disabilities such as Autistic Spectrum Disorders, like Asperger's Syndrome.

Hello, this is my first visit to the CAG and I am hoping for some advice. To cut a very long story short I injured my back at work in April 2006. Government employer would not support it was an injury at work even though went through all the right channels. Carried on working, taking sick when I was in so much pain I couldn't walk. Placed on sickness monitoring twice, had occupational health referrals, placed on final written warning in November last year. Had to take 2 days off in March and was told by line manager she had sent report to big cheese moving for dismissal on capability grounds (due to sickness not the quality of my work when at work) and I would hear in a couple of weeks..... then nothing. Basically referred to Occ Health again in August who say my back condition falls under scope of DDA. Wont bored you with the ensuing situation but would like experiences/advice/thoughts on the fact that the DDA effectively kicks in after 12 months (am paraphrasing, I know there is more to it). As it was clear from my sick absences that this was an ongoing condition should my employer have recognised this earlier, should the occ health advisers have known/mentioned it? It is vaguely alluded to as a 'grey area' but nothing really explicit is asked for or mentioned in the reports. Sorry, that was waffly - basically should my employer have been considering it applying once my condition had gone past 12 months. Phewww, hope that makes sense! Hx

Hi everyone My husband as worked for a company for 14 years with no problems, good attendance and so on. 2 years ago because of cut backs they made the job more demanding without doing a risk assesment, so basically my husband had an injury nothing was done about it, so put in for a industrial injury claim that is nearly being settled. He has seen work doctors who said he can carry on in his own department as long as he has suffience breaks and so so. Well again they are doing cut backs they have gone from shifts to days which they are allowed to do. Then all of a sudden his manager was having problems trying to cut back on the setters, there is only 3 of them, my husband being 1 of them, he was trying to come up with a plan, which was not in there contract, when my husband approached on this, his manager reply was well we will have to get rid of 1. Then the next day my husband received a letter stating that he is being moved to another department because he was only just aware that he had put a claim in for industrial injury, yeah cause it was! I t was the duty care of the company to do this. So now he has lost his shift allowance and his setters rate and the job he is now doing is even harder than the 1 before, and he is still having problem with his injury which occured 2 years ago. He has now but a grievance letter into hr saying he is being discrinimated against and wants to be put back into his old job, he has evidence through his solictor that they knew about this problem over a year ago, so why now, are they allowed to do this, my husband will take this all the way if possible, any comments would be grateful, thankyou

First hello to all and thanks in advance for any and all help given. Sorry it is a long post but it is a complicated problem. (At least I think it is) Outline: I have been disabled for a number of years now, 12 months ago (Jan 2012) I had an accident at work that left me in a condition where I could not work, now a year later on advice from my doctor I am in a position to return to work on a phased return. The company sent me to an independent doctor for evaluation and she agreed with my own doctor of phased return as did the company HR dept and the various other support services I am involved with. However my employer says "Yes you can return on a phased return, but for the first 6 weeks you will have to do 40Hrs per week training (this is full time hours) and that I will have to stay seated for periods of two hours or more, their doctors report clearly states that at most I would be able to stay seated for 20 minutes at any given time. Background: The accident happened in work during normal working hours whilst carrying out my normal duties but my employer denies liability of any kind. During my sickness I was TUPE'd over to a new company 2 days before I was due to return to work (June 04 2012). The 'new' employer had not been notified by the 'old' employer of my imminent return to work. The 'new' employer refused to allow me to return to work at that time on the grounds I would need a 'DSE' assessment and they would need to install any specialist equipment. After this process they kept stating their concern over cost of said equipment and concern that I would not return to work, discussions went on for 2-3 months in October they stipulated the 40 hours a week. I have been claiming SSP and obtaining Sick notes from the doctor to cover the period from their first refusal to allow me to return. Questions: 1. Am I being discriminated against (I.E. If an able bodied person needed a new chair they would have it in minutes) 2. Is the demand I do 40 hours a week training for the first 6 weeks a reasonable request? 3. As the employer refused me access to work should they pay my wages or should I be claiming SSP? 4. Can they insist that I stay seated for prolonged periods that all medical people involved state would be detrimental to my health? CrustyRusty

Hi Folks, Is anyone here over the age of 24 and found that their Apprenticeship Applications are rejected with excuses rather than reasons? I have made several without so much as getting an interview. Recently was rejected for an Junior IT job where I have the neccessary skills but they used my GCSE results from 16 years ago as the reason why I was un-successful. I am aware that businesses are able to apply for funding from the Governments Apprenticeship Scheme for applicants between 16 - 24 years old. They are however obligated to advertise the vacancy to the public. I'm concerned that age discrimination is being used by employers to ensure the vacancies are filled by those who are eligible for the funding. If that was the case then applicants over 24 may be subject to having their applications POO POO'd before they even get face to face with anyone!!!!!!!! Alex1980

Back in November I accepted a conditional job offer. The conditions being to complete a number of pre-employment checks and to provide satisfactory references. I supplied all the required information and completed all the necessary checks including a CRB disclosure and a medical. The results of these were satisfactory with no recorded issues raised on the CRB and, despite a history of depression, I was deemed fit to work by Occupational Health. My prespective line manager had been keen for me to start a.s.a.p and on a number of occasions said they were looking forward to me joining the team a.s.a.p. I was even invited to the team's Christmas Party. At the start of this month there appeared to be unnecessary delays; firstly a reference, which I was assured would be issued prior to Christmas, was apparently not received until the first week of January. Once received, I was told we were waiting for the line manager to clear my references and other documentation. The line manager then went on sick leave for a couple of days. When I chased HR again, I was told a start date could not be confirmed until the line manager had given his approval. Later that day the line manager called me and said there were questions outstanding with occupational health and he couldn't proceed until HR had provided him with the Dr's report. I explained that they had already received this (I had personally witnessed the Dr send this over by e-mail to HR) and I also offered to scan my personal copy and forward to HR again. He then requested details of the report and my medical history, but did not wish me to forward a copy, stating managers could not contact occupational health for information. I felt under pressure to answer his questions in order to progress the recruitment process. He expressed concerns over how depression might impact levels of absence and my ability to handle deadlines (neither of which have been an issue in the past). At the end of the phonecall I was told we still had to wait for the report to be sent in order for the Dr to co-oberate what I had said. I'm still waiting for a start date, but am concerned these are delaying tactics and the offer will be withdrawn. My question, at this time, is whether this is standard practice and what my rights are in this situation?

Not sure if I'm putting this in the correct forum or not so mods feel free to move. As it's now illegal for employers to discriminate on the grounds of age (ha-ha), having been registered for work, both temporary and permanent with a few of the agencies, I have come to the conclusion that the agencies filter out people over the age of 50 for jobs. Time and time again I have seen the agencies I am registered with advertising jobs that I am more than capable of doing yet never get put forward for them. When I do, like the other week got a starting date then the day before I was due to start got a phone call from the agency saying that the employer had taken on someone permanent. Last week, they phoned about the same job, saying the company needed temporary cover, sent me the details of the times and days I would work...then the day before phoned up with exactly the same excuse - the employer has taken on someone permanent (what again? - if you're going to lie, please don't use the same excuse twice). What I'd like to know is has anyone else had a similar experience(s) and who, if anyone, regulates these employment agencies.

I have got fed up with playing letter tennis with Debt Recovery Plus so intend to turn the tables on them and send them a letter of intent regarding legal action for harassment. I will also include a statutory questionnaire for discrimination under the Equalities Act for disability discrimination as they have not made necessary adjustments to their systems and methods of harassing people who dont owe them money to take into account that as a mentally ill person the amount I am distressed by them. Just want to know if anyone else has done this (I know about the famous British Gas case but that is not under the Eq A) and can offer wording for the covering letter and whether S19-20 (discrimination)or S26 (harassment) is more appropriate.

Hey all, Just looking for some advice regarding this issue, first of all let me say that I am not causing for a argument. now what it is I wear this slogan tshirt at the work programme (NOBODY KNOWS I'M GAY) but a few weeks ago I got told to remove the tshirt as one of the advicers said that its not setting a good example of getting me back into work, was she correct? how on earth has that got to do looking for work? everyone can wear what they want but I feel its discrimination. do any of you agree? I will not wear the tshirt at interviews obviously but I should be allowed what to wear when I am not at interviews! Just looking to see if you agree with my advicer if you felt she was right or wrong? if she is wrong could I go to citizen advice about this issue? Thanks Regards Shaun

With great pain I am writing to you as I am cheated(I assume) by John Lewis phone order service. On 09/12/12, I called Welwyn JL store(01707 323456) to order camera(D5100 with 18-55mm and 55-200mm lens) as I show on hotukdeals for £429.95. I was told by customer service lady that deal is over but there is deal in Southampton store and she can order for me at £449.95 and we both agreed on it. She order for me with my card details and she gave me order no: 35609537. After that I had talk with my friends and 3 of my friends ordered it with price £449.95 and one of my friend also got tracking number. After talk with my friend who got tracking number I called Welwyn JL store(01707 323456) one more time for tracking number and person told me that my order has been cancelled as there was issue with bank and asked me to contact bank. I immediately called bank and they said payment is gone fine and also gave me payment reference number. After that I called Welwyn JL store(01707 323456) and they said it was wrong deal so they cancel deal. Here Welwyn JL store(01707 323456) and I both agreed on price of £449.95 even-though they charged me £ 639.95 without my permission and without my knowledge. They lied to me about order cancellation and also cancel my order without any reason. Here JL cheated me with more price then what was agreed and also cancel my order and giving me wrong reason though they accepted and delivered camera who order after me for £449.95, I want to know why this has happened to me and who will pay me for my loss as I also lost same deal form currys as I was loyal JL customer and want to buy from it.

I have been signed off work for the past 3 weeks due to Stress related problems. I have found out that after a 10 days, my Employer is advertising for my position believing that I will not be returning. I have no discussions with them in relation to my condition. I have received a letter from them today asking me to attend a meeting on Tuesday in relation to a previous meeting regarding procedures. Do I have to attend if I am still of sick and is there a case of Discrimination under the Equalities Act 2010 by advertising my position after such a short time. Any advice would be great.