







Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
The aim of this lecture is to consider the place of disability rights within. Directive 2000/78/EC and to illustrate that development of ...
Typology: Schemes and Mind Maps
1 / 13
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
The aim of this lecture is to consider the place of disability rights within Directive 2000/78/EC and to illustrate that development of disability rights more generally by reference to the UK experience of implementing the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA). The paper seeks, in particular, to establish the link between the concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’, the new ‘equality paradigm’ that such rights represent, and human rights.
The history of disabled people in the western liberal democracies since the Second World War is one of movement from being regarded as objects of pity and potential beneficiaries of welfare to being seen as bearers of rights whose denial should be a cause of indignation.
The association of the disability movement in the USA with the civil rights movement in the 1960s and 1970s led in due course to the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990. At the same time, the established medical model of disability gave way to a new social model, which saw disability as a social construct, the result of a failure on the part of society to accommodate individual impairment.
It was not until 1995 that the DDA was passed in the UK. The DDA was significantly different from the well-established UK race and gender legislation. In particular, it was not equal treatment legislation at all but instead imported from the USA the notion of reasonable accommodation or reasonable adjustment, thereby establishing the need for employers and
Article 1
Purpose
The purpose of this Directive is to lay down a general framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation as regards employment and occupation, with a view to putting into effect in the Member States the principle of equal treatment.
Article 2
Concept of discrimination
(a) direct discrimination shall be taken to occur where one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1; (b) indirect discrimination shall be taken to occur where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons having a particular religion or belief, a particular disability, a particular age, or a particular sexual orientation at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons unless:
(i) that provision , criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary, or (ii) as regards persons with a particular disability, the employer or any other person or organisation to whom this Directive applies, is obliged, under national legislation, to take appropriate measures in line with the principles contained in Article 5 in order to
eliminate disadvantages entailed by such provision, criterion or practice
Article 5
Reasonable accommodation for disabled persons
In order to guarantee compliance with the principle of equal treatment in relation to persons with disabilities, reasonable accommodation shall be provided. This means that employers shall take appropriate measures, where needed in a particular case, to enable a person with a disability to have access to, participate in, or advance in employment, or to undergo training, unless such measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer. This burden shall not be disproportionate when it is sufficiently remedied by measures existing within the framework of disability policy of the Member State concerned.
Recital 17
This Directive does not require the recruitment, promotion, maintenance in employment or training of an individual who is not competent, capable and available to perform essential functions of the post concerned or to undergo the relevant training, without prejudice to the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities.
Recital 20
Appropriate measures should be provided, i.e. effective and practical measures to adapt the workplace to the disability, for example adapting premises and equipment, patterns of working time, the distribution of tasks, or the provision of training or integration resources.
Recital 21
To determine whether the measures in question give rise to a disproportionate burden, account should be taken in particular of the financial and other costs entailed, the scale and financial resources of the organisation or undertaking and the possibility of obtaining public funding or any other assistance.
B. UK DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1995 (AS AMENDED)
3A Meaning of ‘discrimination’
(1) For the purposes of this Part, a person discriminates against a disabled person if –
(a) for a reason which relates to the disabled person’s disability, he treats him less favourably than he treats or would treat others to whom that reason does not or would not apply, and
(3) Nothing in this section imposes any duty on an employer in relation to a disabled person if the employer does not know, and could not reasonably be expected to know –
(a) in the case of an applicant or potential applicant, that the disabled person concerned is, or may be, an applicant for the employment; (b) in any case, that that person has a disability and is likely to be affected in the way mentioned in subsection (1).
18B Reasonable adjustments: supplementary
(1) In determining whether it is reasonable for a person to have to take a particular step in order to comply with a duty to make reasonable adjustments, regard shall be had, in particular, to -
(a) the extent to which taking the step would prevent the effect in relation to which the duty is imposed (b) the extent to which it is practicable for him to take the step (c) the financial and other costs which would be incurred by him in taking the step and the extent to which taking it would disrupt any of his activities (d) the extent of his financial and other resources (e) the availability to him of financial or other assistance with respect to taking the step (f) the nature of his activities and the size of his undertaking (g) where the step would be taken in relation to a private household, the extent to which taking it would (i) disrupt that household, or (ii) disturb any person residing there
(2) The following are examples of steps which a person may need to take in relation to a disabled person in order to comply with a duty to make reasonable adjustments –
(a) making adjustments to premises (b) allocating some of the disabled person’s duties to another person (c) transferring him to fill an existing vacancy (d) altering his hours of working or training (e) assigning him to a different place of work or training (f) allowing him to be absent during working or training hours for rehabilitation, assessment or treatment (g) giving, or arranging for, training or mentoring (whether for the disabled person or any other person) (h) acquiring or modifying equipment (i) modifying instructions or reference manuals (j) modifying procedures for testing or assessment (k) providing a reader or interpreter (l) providing supervision or other support
Some key headings
3 Duties of Public authorities
In the 1995 Act, after section 49 there is inserted –
Part 5A
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
49A General duty
Every public authority shall in carrying out its functions have due regard to –
(a) the need to eliminate discrimination that is unlawful under this Act; (b) the need to eliminate harassment of disabled persons that is related to their disabilities; (c) the need to promote equality of opportunity between disabled persons and other persons; (d) the need to take steps to take account of disabled persons’ disabilities, even where that involves treating disabled persons more favourably than other persons; (e) the need to promote positive attitudes towards disabled persons; and (f) the need to encourage participation by disabled persons in public life.
a time, and must have been well aware of the ground rules. But Lewisham’s reason for seeking possession – that Mr Malcolm had sublet the flat and gone to live elsewhere – was pure housing management decision which had nothing whatever to do with his mental disability. With some hesitation I would resolve this issue against Mr Malcolm.
Baroness Hale
in the context of employment. They must mean the same throughout, however inconvenient the result may now appear to be.
H. BOTTA v ITALY [1998] 26 EHRR 241
‘Although the object of Article 8 is essentially that of protecting the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities…this provision may nonetheless, in certain cases, impose on those States positive obligations inherent in an effective respect for private life even in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves…Such positive obligations may exceptionally arise in the case of the handicapped [sic] in order to ensure that they are not deprived of the possibility of developing social relations with others and thereby developing their own personalities. In this regard, the Commission observes that there is no water-tight division separating the sphere of social and economic rights from the field covered by the Convention. This is an area in which a wide discretion must inevitably be accorded to the national authorities. Nevertheless, the crucial factor is the extent to which a particular individual is so circumscribed and so isolated as to be deprived of the possibility of developing his personality’.
I. PRICE v UK [2001] 34 EHRR 1285
In a civilised country…society considers it not only appropriate but a basic humane concern to try to ameliorate and compensate for the disabilities faced by a person in the applicant’s situation. In my opinion, these compensatory measures come to form part of the disabled person’s bodily integrity. It follows that, for example, to prevent the applicant, who lacks both ordinary legs and arms, from bringing with her the battery charger to her wheelchair when she is sent to prison for one week, or to leave her in unsuitable sleeping conditions so that she has to endure pain and cold – the latter to the extent that eventually a doctor had to be called – is in my opinion a violation of the applicant’s right to bodily integrity. The applicant’s disabilities are not hidden or easily overlooked. It requires no special qualification, only a minimum of ordinary human empathy, to appreciate her situation and to understand that to avoid unnecessary hardship – that is, hardship not implicit in the imprisonment of an able- bodied person – she has to be treated dif ferently from other people because her situation is significantly different’.
J. A, B, X AND Y v EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL [2003] EWHC 167
True it is that the phrase [human dignity] is not used in the Convention but it is surely immanent in Article 8, indeed in almost every one of the Convention’s
The Grand Chamber