รายละเอียดกระทู้

http://www.cipd.co.uk/pm/peoplemanagement/b/weblog/archive/2013/04/26/stress-and-disability.aspx Does the duty to make reasonable adjustments include preventing the anxiety caused by reducing an employee’s workload? The case Foster v Cardiff University is a reminder that it is the effect of a disability which employers should take into account in determining reasonable adjustments, not the cause of it. Facts Foster, an academic, had chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), a recognised disability. At the business school where she worked, a points-based system was used to monitor how demanding workloads were. For years she had been allocated fewer points than the average. She became concerned about the allocation of work for the next academic year as the employer aimed to increase the target for each person to 350 points. She went off sick. The teaching allocation was distributed and she was allocated 331 points, an increase on what she previously had, but still below average and one of the lowest allocations. Following a meeting after her return to work, her allocation was reduced to 307 points. At a later meeting it was agreed she would be allocated 120 points for supervising PhD students, which was subsequently reduced to 100 points. This and other discussions about workload caused Foster stress. She went off sick, issued a grievance which was rejected, and claimed disability discrimination. Tribunal The issue was whether the employer had done enough to comply with its duty to make reasonable adjustments. The tribunal dismissed her claim, holding that the employer’s duty was to take reasonable steps to remove disadvantages resulting from Foster's disability, not to reduce her associated levels of anxiety, although it acknowledged that one might feed into the other. Foster appealed. EAT The Employment Appeal Tribunal decided that two points of law were raised: • the meaning of disability. Foster argued that, although it was accepted she had a disability, the tribunal failed to take into account any of the wider health problems from which she suffered, in particular anxiety and stress which, according to the medical evidence, triggered or exacerbated her CFS • the need for a comparator. Foster argued the tribunal was wrong to conduct a comparison exercise between her and a person (actual or hypothetical) who did not have her disability. On the first point, the EAT said anxiety and stress should be taken into account when they were connected to the nature of the disability itself, for example, an anxiety disorder. Anxiety and stress acted as triggers for Foster’s condition, but the law did not require a tribunal to investigate the causes of a disability, only its effects. The tribunal's judgment was consistent with the relevant guidance, and it had also been right to compare the employee with a person who did not have the relevant disability. Comment This case is a useful reminder to employers of the scope of the duty to make reasonable adjustments both in terms of the need to make reasonable adjustments rather than all possible adjustments, and in terms of the disability. There is no duty either to make adjustments in respect of the causes of a disability – just its effects. An employer’s responsibility is to alleviate the adverse impact of the disability. Employer’s will be aware, however, aside from any obligations under the Equality Act 2010, that they do owe their employees a duty of care, which may require them to address the cause of an adverse impact if it arises from an employee’s work duties. Audrey Williams is a partner at Eversheds