Got a problem?

Been treated unfairly? Do other people get a better deal than you? Do you think you might be being discriminated against? Check out our problem page to find out what advice our discrimination expert, Richard Leong, gave to other readers, or ask him your own question using the feedback form at the bottom of the page.

I'm paid less than others

Dear Richard
My employer pays me less than the other staff, doing the same job, with the same sales targets. The only difference is that I work from home and work flexi hours. The reason they have given me for a £3,500 per annum difference, is that they pay a premium salary to those that can set their hours, so that they can forecast staff levels and monitor them against expected sales, based on previous years. Is that enough for discrimination laws not to apply?

Richard says:
As I understand your problem, you are being paid less than other staff, and your employer is justifying the pay difference for business and financial reasons. You all do the same work and the only difference between you and the other staff is your working from home on flexi hours.

There are various discrimination laws that may apply to your situation, depending on your personal circumstances and who are your 'comparators' (other staff in similar circumstances who you compare yourself with to see if you are treated differently. For example, you will need to compare yourself with a male, full time worker not on flexi time, someone who works in sales in a similar position, with similar work experience and qualifications and length of service.

I will outline the different rules which may apply to you below:

• If you work part time, you should not be treated less favourably than full time workers. On a pro rata basis you should get any pay, bonuses, commission and other fringe benefits that full time workers enjoy. Remember that part time work is different from flexi time work. If the difference in pay of £3,500 cannot be accounted for by the difference in hours, then the employer will have to show that the discrimination is 'justified'. That is, that the difference in pay is to help them achieve a reasonable business aim.

• If you are working at home on flexi time because of childcare duties, then the difference in pay may be a form of indirect sex discrimination. Your 'comparator' is a man employed at the office working normal hours. Working mothers looking after young children at home should not be disadvantaged. This could be sex discrimination unless the employer can justify the difference in treatment.

• If you are being paid less than a man solely because you are a woman, both doing the same work, then this is straightforward discrimination on the grounds of sex, covered by the Equal Pay Act. Again, the employer can justify this difference in pay.

Your company is attempting to justify the difference in pay by saying that only by having set work hours can they forecast and monitor sales. Having set hours is something that acts to your disadvantage as woman working on part time or flexi time. This can be indirectly discriminatory. The company can justify this policy only if there is no alternative to facilitating forecasting or monitoring other than this means. If you can think of an alternative that would be less discriminatory, let the company know. For example, if your flexi time work hours are predictable or can be regularised, then the difference in pay cannot be justified.

I would advise you to file a grievance about the difference in pay (you should mention your comparators and their pay) - see Dealing with discrimination at work – how to use the grievance procedure.

You could also lodge a discrimination 'questionnaire' to your employer. This is to help you gather evidence to show that you are being discriminated against. In your questionnaire you could ask questions such as: what is the reason for the difference in pay? What is the gender breakdown of the sales force? Is there an equal opportunities policy in place?

The company has eight weeks to reply to the questionnaire with adequate answers. It can be worth doing the questionnaire, since it puts pressure on the company to provide truthful answers. You can also ask for documents like the equal opportunities policy.

If you end up having to take your case as far as a tribunal (a type of court dealing with employment law problems) you can use the replies to the questionnaire as evidence. If your employer fails to give you adequate answers to your questionnaire within eight weeks the tribunal can infer that discrimination has taken place.

Before you do anything get advice from a local advice agency on your specific circumstances. They can talk through the different steps with you and help you decide what to do next. If you do want to file a grievance or lodge a questionnaire they may also be able to advise you what to put in it, to get the best results.

I'm scared to discuss it

Dear Richard
I have recently been diagnosed with bi-polar. I had two weeks off sick from work at this time as my depression was quite severe. On my return to work, (I am a learning support assistant in a primary school) I informed my head teacher of my condition and asked her if she felt that this would impact on the job that I do. This wasn't a return to work interview just me feeling that I needed to be honest about my condition due to the fact that we have a lot of vulnerable children in our school.

The head assured me that she didn't feel this would impact on my job and I should just continue in my role as normal. Since this time I have had to leave work on two occasions due to anxiety. This was not witnessed by any children as I was able to recognise signs and request that I go home.

On Monday I was called into the Head's office who informed me that she was taking me out of a group that I was working in because she didn't feel I was emotionally stable enough to deal with it. I was shocked and at first just agreed to do what they wanted me to. On reflection I felt that I had been dealt with quite harshly and the next day I arranged a meeting with the Head to ask why she felt I was emotionally unstable and had this been reflected in my work. I was informed that my colleague had commented that she needed someone who could support her more emotionally and she felt that I was not up to this. There was no mention of any negative impact on the children work with. The Head then went on to say that I should be aware that there would be budget cuts in July and she would be getting rid of the most unreliable staff.

I believe that all this has come about because I was honest about my condition, I also feel that I can not have any time off work in the future if I am not well because I will lose my job. The stress and anxiety this is causing me is having a very negative effect on my mental health but I am scared to discuss it with my employer in case she deems me as unstable or unreliable. Please help me, I am sure I am being discriminated against would like an expert opinion.

Richard says:
I understand that you suffer from bi-polar, with symptoms of depression and anxiety. After informing your employer of your medical condition, their response has been by taking you off classroom duties and a veiled threat of redundancy. This has caused your condition to worsen and increases the chances of losing your job. You are scared about taking sick leave or discussing your situation with the School. This sounds like a nightmare situation: it seems that the more honest and responsible you are with the School, the more your work situation worsens.

You are however protected under the Disability Discrimination Act, which prohibits mistreatment on the grounds of disability. You will need to get a medical report to confirm your disability. The lawrequires an employer to make 'reasonable adjustments' to allow you to cope at work, not to harass you and not to dismiss you for unjustifiable reasons.

Although your employer is using your disability as a weapon against you, you did the right thing in disclosing your disability. Your employer is now on notice of your disability and will have to make reasonable adjustments. A medical report will be useful in identifying and recommending reasonable adjustments, such as giving you more support in the classroom, change of hours and duties, more time to recover, and most importantly, have you medically assessed by the School doctor.

The School should not make medically uninformed, and possibly stereotypical, judgments about someone with bi-polar. If the School genuinely believes that there is a health and safety risk to the pupils, any action should be supported by medical evidence. You should also be invited to a meeting to discuss this situation. If dismissal is on the agenda, the ACAS code of practice (see the link on the right hand side) requires your employer to follow a fair and proper disciplinary procedure. Any dismissal or redundancy could be unfair and discriminatory otherwise.

Taking you out of the classroom could be justifiable, if it is a short term measure, pending medical assessment. But it seems that this decision was based a non medically qualified colleague making a medical judgement on your emotional state of mind. You are quite right: there is a difference between being emotional and allowing it to affect your work. It seems that the School failed to address the question of whether there was any detrimental impact on the children.

My advice is to ask the School or your own doctor for a medical report, confirming your disability and recommending reasonable adjustments. You should remind the School of their duty to make reasonable adjustment before taking unilateral action against you. I would lodge a grievance about the way you have been treated. It would not be advisable to compromise your heath for fear of repercussions; you should take time off work if you need to time to recover. It is very important that you seek advice, perhaps from your trades union.

The School has a duty towards the welfare of the children (which of course is paramount), as well as a duty towards you as an employee. This is a balancing exercise. But the children's welfare and your employment rights need not necessarily be in conflict. The School needs to manage the situation properly, and to obtain advice from Human Resources. But some of the School's decisions and actions seem to be uninformed and an over reaction. You should be treated you with sympathy and understanding, rather than being seen as a risk or liability to the School. I hope that this helps.

Could they discipline or dismiss me?

Dear Richard
I work full time in the NHS. I have to work in a department two and a half days per week, which is not my usual department. I had two slipped disc operations in 2004/5, and now a hip replacement at the end of 2009.

I am concerned as I feel I can't cope with the pace of the department I've been sent to. Could they discipline or dismiss me because I cannot do that job? I can manage quite alright in my own department. Could this be regarded as a disability within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act?

Richard says:
Sorry to hear about your work situation.

There are essentially three questions, namely, are you disabled? Were 'reasonable adjustments' made? Are you at risk of dismissal?

Slip discs and hip (problems) replacements can be recognised as disabilities only if they have substantial and long term adverse effects on your normal daily activities. Doubtless you have mobility problems, are in pain and need more time to complete tasks. The real question, in the legal sense, is whether your medical condition is long term, lasting for at least one year or likely to reoccur in future. But if the operation has resulted in a permanent cure, then you would not be considered disabled. You will need a medical report to confirm your disability: ask your employer or your own doctor for a medical assessment and report.

If you are recognised as being disabled, then your employer has a legal duty to make 'reasonable adjustments', possibly including changing your job duties, place of work, and providing support and giving more time to complete tasks. Again a medical report is crucial in identifying and recommending reasonable adjustments. You will need to inform you employer of your medical condition, if you have not already done so. Your employer’s failure to make reasonable adjustments could be disability discrimination.

A person’s capability to do a job is potentially a fair reason for dismissal (non discriminatory dismissal). The ACAS code of practice places a duty on the employer to give the employee a chance to improve, with appropriate support like appraisals, training, monitoring, targets, reviews etc. Dismissal should be seen as a last and not first resort.

If you have been unfairly treated, you can lodge a grievance, mentioning the disability discrimination. You should seek support from your trades union. I would try to resolve this internally before escalating it to a tribunal claim.

It is best to discuss the situation with your employer, accompanied by your trades union rep. Ask if it is possible to work in your previous department only. Remind your employer of their duties under the Disability Discrimination Act and the ACAS code of practice. Quite often this informal approach is effective in such situations. If all fails, then you have the right to bring a tribunal claim.

Premium rate alternative formats

Dear Richard
I recently received a leaflet called 'Crime and Anti Social Behaviour' from the Home Office. I noticed in it that if I required the information in an 'alternative format' due to disability I would have to call a premium rate phone number.

Surely this penalty imposed on a disabled person is unfair? And is this in the spirit or unlawful when the Disability Discrimination Act is taken into account?

Richard says:
I had a look at the Home Office 'Crime and Anti Social Behaviour' leaflet, and indeed phoned the number for ordering leaflets. The assistant confirmed that the leaflet is available in different languages and Braille and large print and audio versions - all free of charge. The telephone call was charged at 8 pence per minute, but mobile charges could vary.

The question is whether charging for the call is discrimination on the grounds of disability. To show such discrimination, you would have to prove that as a disabled person, you have been treated less favourably compared to a non disabled person in ordering these leaflets. 'Alternative format' covers disability and foreign languages. So, both disabled and non disabled callers are charged the premium rate. The fact is that disabled and non disabled enquirers would both have to pay for the telephone call, and thus there would be no less favourable treatment, and therefore no discrimination on the grounds of disability in the legal sense.

However, disability discrimination law does require the Home Office to make reasonable adjustments, which could mean not charging disabled people for their calls, but charging non disabled callers. But exactly how this could be implemented in a practical sense is another matter. The problem here is that there is no obvious link between disability and the cost of the calls, as opposed to a situation where there is a clear link between a visual impairment and non Braille leaflets or non audio versions. The fact that the Home Office has available these leaflets in a user friendly format for disabled people is probably an adequate reasonable adjustment.

Clearly the spirit of equal opportunities would suggest that the Home Office should make the calls free of charge. But legally, I cannot see this as discrimination.

However if you wish to pursue the matter further, you could take advantage of the Home Office's complaint procedure or get a disability campaigning organisation involved. Good luck.

Overqualified?

Dear Richard
I've applied for a job and the recruiter has come back with the following comment:

"Unfortunately due to your front office experience, our clients feel that you would be overqualified for operations positions and your skills and experiences would not be fully utilised."

I have done an operation role before being promoted to the front office, I know what the job entails and can do the job very effectively.

I was not told that I could not do the job nor that I would not cope. I have been unemployed for over a year and feel that I am being discriminated against because I'm overqualified. Surely if I'm prepared to take on a role which is junior to my previous roles I should not be denied the right to a job?

I am at my wits end, could I please have some guidance as to my legal position and what actions I can take.

Richard says:
On the surface, it looks as though you have been rejected for the job for the operational role because you are over qualified. But more sinisterly, do you believe that you may have been rejected because you are over qualified because of your age? Do you suspect that the company wants to recruit only younger workers for this role?

The age discrimination regulations outlaw 'indirect age discrimination'. For example, a requirement that you must not to be over qualified for the role is more likely to affect older workers than younger ones. Does this apply in your case?

You may want to send the company a discrimination questionnaire (see the link on the right hand side) to help you gather evidence, asking questions like: what do you mean by me being overqualified? Do you believe that I would get bored with the job? Was my age an issue? What is the age of the successful recruit? You could also ask whether it is possible for you to undergo a trial period to see if it would work out.

You have the right as a job seeker to bring an age discrimination tribunal claim, based on the company making ageist assumptions about you. Unfortunately, there is no legal remedy against discrimination on the grounds of over qualification (unless it can be shown that it is 'indirect age discrimination') - even though it is very unfair. The discrimination laws cover only: race, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation and religion and belief. However, I am sure that with your work experience and commitment, you will find a suitable position very soon. I hope this helps.

Final warning

Dear Richard
My son is 22 years old and has Asperger syndrome. He has been working as a nursery nurse in a private crèche since last January.

He received a final warning in July because he had failed to report a child bumping his head. It is final because it is classified as a serious fault.

Unfortunately, I was not aware of the disciplinary hearing until a few weeks later. I think that the crèche is at fault as well because my son should not have been on his own with a large number of children.

Two weeks ago, his team were told that they would receive a warning because parents have been complaining about the standards of care. Since then we have not heard anything from the owners of the crèche. But I am worried that my son is going to be made redundant as he is already on a final warning. He has tried to find the company's Employee Information Binder where they keep the disciplinary and dismissal procedures, the grievance procedure and so on but he was told there is not one.

So we are at a loss on what to do if he has to face another hearing. He is not able to defend himself and I believe that even if he’s not perfect, his employer is failing him and is at fault as well. I hope you can help.

Richard says
I am sorry to hear about your son’s problems at work. Not all conditions are automatically covered by the Disability Discrimination Act, it depends on the affect they have on the person. However, the symptoms your son experiences as part of his Asperger syndrome, for example, social isolation and communication problems etc probably mean that he will be recognised as disabled and therefore covered by the Disability Discrimination Act.

Therefore the crèche has a legal duty to make 'reasonable adjustments' to allow your son to cope at work. Was the crèche aware of his condition? Has the crèche ever obtained a medical report on it and been advised on reasonable adjustments? If not, you should ask your son's doctor or consultant for a medical report and give it to the crèche.

'Reasonable adjustments' could include ensuring that your son had enough staff support in terms of nursery nurse and children ratio numbers, or allowing you or someone else to attend his disciplinary hearing. If the crèche had failed to make reasonable adjustments, then the final warning may have been an act of disability discrimination. Did the crèche take into account the large number of children as a mitigating factor? How have other staff (non disabled) been treated? Check the ACAS code of practice on an employer’s duty to go through a proper disciplinary procedure - see the link on the right hand side.

I would advise your son to lodge a complaint under the crèche’s grievance procedure. You mention that they don’t have any written procedures. Small employers can be poor in having proper policies and procedures in place. But this is not an excuse for poor management, since they should in any event abide by the ACAS code of practice. If the crèche did not rely on any disciplinary policies or procedures, then the final written warning was probably unfair; and indicative of discrimination if they did not have an equal opportunities policy either. Your son could appeal against the sanction on these grounds.

He should not be at any greater risk than other staff of redundancy. Indeed, because of his condition, he should be treated as a special case. But if he does find himself dismissed, he could bring a claim for unfair dismissal (providing he has one year’s service and is an employee) and disability discrimination. In the meantime, you could inform the crèche that there are disability rights organisations that give advice, guidance and support to employers with staff who have Asperger syndrome.

I suggest you get some further advice on your son’s circumstances from an advice agency so that you know what options you have and the pros and cons of the different courses of action. I hope that this helps.

Impossible to get an interview

Dear Richard
I'm 57, with over 30 years experience within banking and I was made redundant in January after the Lloyds Banking group took over HBOS. I have found it almost impossible to get an interview for the most lowest paid jobs even though my experience and skill sets are right for the positions applied for.

My wife who is 12 years younger than me and has skill sets that mirror mine has applied for the same jobs and has had success in getting interviews.

Richard says:
This sounds like age discrimination. Direct age discrimination is where you have been treated less favourably than another person because of your age. Your comparator is your wife, who is younger than you, and applying for the same jobs. She is getting interviews, whereas you have not, even though you both have the same skills set.

The employer can try to justify this discrimination on various grounds, for example, you would get quickly bored with the low paid job because you are over qualified and experienced. If this justification is based on stereotypical assumptions about the attitude of older workers, then it is unlikely to succeed.

However, a more acceptable justification could be the employer allowing younger people the chance to get jobs for purposes of long term employment planning. The present recession is making it very difficult for many people to find jobs, and vulnerable groups (ethnic minorities, the disabled and older people) have the added hurdle of facing discrimination, in their search for jobs. Statistically, people over 50 years stand a 10 per cent chance of getting work. The under 40s stand a 50 per cent chance of finding employment.

Next time you are rejected for a job and you suspect it is because of your age, you could get a younger person to apply for the job, and see what happens. Your wife’s success is evidence of age discrimination. As a job seeker, you are protected against discrimination on the grounds of your age, under the Age Discrimination regulations.

You could send an age discrimination questionnaire (see the link on the right hand side on questionnaires) to these companies, asking questions like: what was the age of the successful candidate? What were his/her experience and qualifications? Why did he/she get the job and not me? What is the age breakdown of the workforce? Do you have an equal opportunities policy? If you are not satisfied with the replies to your questions, you can bring an age discrimination claim against the company. It’s a good idea to get an advice agency to help you with all this. In the meantime, good luck with the job search.

Why don't they have disabled toilets?

Dear Richard
I run a local support group for people with arthritis. I want to know why a fish restaurant which can seat more then sixty guests does not have a toilet that disabled people can use. Also does a private golf club have to provide disabled toilet facilities?

Richard says:
This is a relevant question that has importance to a lot of disabled people.

The Disability Discrimination Act states that providers of goods and services to the public have a duty to make 'reasonable adjustments' to their premises, which may include the provision of toilet facilities to disabled customers. This duty depends very much on the type of premises, whether, for example, it is a newsagent (where toilet facilities are not expected) or a restaurant (where they are expected).

If toilet facilities are expected to be provided to disabled customers, then it would be a reasonable adjustment to have toilets for disabled customers that are accessible and roomy enough for wheelchair users and have handrails. There is no excuse for ignorance of the law, since employers can get advice from disability organisations on how to implement these reasonable adjustments. Even if the restaurant does not have toilets facilities for disabled customers, they should have at the very least signposting where the nearest public toilets are located.

A sixty seater restaurant should have toilets facilities for disabled customers, as a reasonable adjustment. It may well be acting unlawfully in not doing so, since it is providing a service to the public. My advice is to write a letter of complaint to the restaurant, reminding them of their legal duties and that many of their paying customers are disabled, who might well take their business elsewhere.

The Disability Discrimination Act states that private members clubs (including golf clubs) are covered by the Act; and have a duty to make reasonable adjustments, including providing toilet facilities for disabled people.

However such private members clubs are exempt from the law if their membership is less than 25 private members (assuming that their services are only to private members and not to members of the public, unlike for example, video renting shops or health clubs).

But if the club is not exempt from the duty to make reasonable adjustments, then disabled members and guests of the private members club have a legitimate expectation that the club will provide toilets for them, as a reasonable adjustment.

This issue of available and accessible disabled toilets facilities for disabled people using shops and restaurants and clubs is a thorny issue, with no easy answers. Responsible proprietors should get advice from disability organisations, and provide such toilet facilities, if it is reasonable to do so (remember that the duty to make reasonable adjustments is not an absolute duty). For businesses it is usually a question of costs.

If you feel that a shop or restaurant has failed in its duty to provide toilet facilities to disabled customers, you should write and complain, failing which you can bring a claim for disability discrimination in the county court. (See the links on the right hand side for more information.) Another way to complain is simply to stop eating and shopping at those places, and take your business elsewhere to places that treat their disabled customers with dignity and respect.

Disclosing my disability

Dear Richard
I work for a very large passenger transport provider as a driving instructor and NVQ assessor. I disclosed my disability (which is ME) on the form and have told them that standing for longer than 15 minutes causes me severe pain. When I asked my boss for his help with this his response was to put me on inspectors' duties which involve standing for an average of 8 to 10 hours.

I am so afraid to say anything else in case they sack me and I am now in constant pain, even with the morphine. Can you tell me or advise me on what to do. Thank you.

Richard says:
Your work situation sounds like a nightmare, with your constant pain and fear of complaining. But you do have rights and remedies under the law. The Disability Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination against a disabled worker. You may have a disability claim, providing that you can show that you are a disabled person.

ME (chronic fatigue syndrome) should probably be recognised a disability. Your employer has a duty to make 'reasonable adjustments' in your working conditions, for example transferring you or changing your job duties. Clearly it would not be unreasonable to take away your inspector duties (which require standing for long hours) and to replace them with a non standing role, possibly returning you to your previous job as driving instructor and NVQ assessor.

The company should send you to the company doctor to get a medical report, to diagnose your condition and to recommend what reasonable adjustments might be made, to allow you to cope at work. If this is not happening, you should get your own medical report from your GP, for the same purpose, and then send it to your employer.

If the pain of working under these conditions is unbearable, I advise you to go on sick leave (providing you have sick notes to cover your absence). Although I appreciate your fear of dismissal were you to complain, nevertheless, I advise you to file a complaint using the company's grievance procedure - see our guide 'How to use the grievance procedure'.

Clearly, this situation cannot go on indefinitely if you are presently in constant pain. Your employers should take active measures to help you cope at work. What you need to do is to remind them of their legal duties towards you. You should make a written complaint. It's probably a good idea to get an adviser to help you with this. I hope that this helps.

'Looks good but is very young'

Dear Richard
I received an e-mail from a company I had applied to saying 'he looks good but is very young.' I meet the exact requirements of the job and believe I received this e-mail as a mistake. Is this direct age discrimination?

Richard says:
I am assuming that you were interviewed for a job and were unsuccessful. What job did you apply for? Were you interviewed? Direct age discrimination is where you are treated less favourably than another person on the grounds of your age.

In your case, you will need to show that the successful candidate was not better qualified for the job and was significantly older than you. Even if you could show this, the company could try to justify your less favourable treatment, usually by arguing that the job required staff of a certain age (for example, for business image purposes). If it came to a tribunal this defence is not likely to succeed since it relies on ageist stereotyping (for example patients preferring older looking doctors).

Receiving the email itself was probably not an act of discrimination, since it had been sent to you by mistake. But the email is evidence of a discriminatory attitude of mind (I trust you have printed it out!) To collect more evidence, you can send the company an age discrimination questionnaire (see the link on the right hand side - it is best to get help with this from an expert adviser).

In the questionnaire you can ask the company: what did you mean by the email? What is the age of the successful candidate? Why did he/she get the job and not me? If you wish to pursue this matter further, you can bring an age discrimination claim against the company as a job seeker. Again you should get an adviser to help you with this - see 'Get discrimination advice'.

Your query is topical given the level of unemployment among young people looking for work. Employers in the present economic climate are looking for experienced (and older) staff unfortunately. Although this is a business decision, nevertheless it is still discrimination to reject job applicants because they 'look young'. Good luck with the job search.

They won't let us park next to our caravan

I need advice on how to handle the caravan park where my family has a caravan. We bought the caravan three years ago. We were told at the point of sale that we would be able to park our car outside the caravan for easy access for my husband.

There is no road access to the caravan, and to park a car in the designated parking areas would mean a 200 - 400 metre walk on uneven ground for my husband, who would not be able to manage this.

The park is now saying we can no longer park the car beside the caravan and that it will be putting up fencing to stop cars going onto the grass to park beside the caravans.

Richard says:
You have basically two legal remedies against the caravan site owners: firstly, breach of contract and secondly, disability discrimination.

At the point of sale, there was an agreement between you and the caravan site owners that you had permission to park your car next to your caravan. An agreement as such is legally binding, even if it was only verbal (although it would be harder to prove). Check the wording of any written contract you may have to confirm this understanding. The caravan site owners may be in beach of contract by preventing you getting access. Your legal remedy could be to sue them for any loss you suffer, including inconvenience and the cost of moving to another site - you should certainly ask for your money back! Was the site owner aware of your husband disability at the time of agreement?

Under the Disability Discrimination Act, providers of goods and services to the public have a duty not to discriminate against service users, including the duty to make 'reasonable adjustments', to allow people to have reasonable access to goods and services. The site owners may have breached their legal duty to make reasonable adjustments, by preventing you from having reasonable access to your caravan. See the link on the right hand side for more information on reasonable adjustments.

I can imagine that the decision to fence off the site was probably prompted by the fact that too many caravan users were parking their cars on the grass, and that this new policy is being applied to everyone. But because your husband is a disabled person (I am assuming that he has mobility problems), he should be treated as a special case and given preferential treatment. This is what the law requires of the caravan site owners.

I would advise you to speak to the caravan site owners, reminding them of their legal duties and your husband's legal rights. Perhaps you could persuade them to introduce a disability car badge scheme to allow access only to disabled users. If this informal approach fails to get results, I would advise you to make a formal written complaint.

You might consider checking if the site owners are members of a trades association, and consider contacting the association about this situation - they may have an arbitration or mediation service, whose purpose is to resolve disputes between their members and consumers. You should also consider informing the local council, since operating a caravan site would probably require permission from the local authorities, who will certainly have conditions attached to such permission, including equal opportunities.

You should get further advice on your options - try and get in touch with a local advice agency for advice on the best course of action for you. You can also read more information about the Disability Discrimination Act in the links on the right hand side. Good luck.

He has turned on me now

Dear Richard
I work in a small office - seven of us. Some four years ago we got a new director who has since started bullying certain members of staff. Specifically the older members of staff - particularly the females, verbally and due to volume of work, making life hell. So far two women have walked out and two gentlemen have had their hours cut.

He has turned on me now - I am a 50 year old female with Parkinson's - I end up crying every day. My director applied to my doctor for her opinion as to whether I was fit to work and she replied to 'their evil letter' saying that I was ok. They are now giving me so much work and as I am unable to complete it, say that they are going to dismiss me as 'I am unable to do my job'.

Please help - what should I do?

Richard says:
Your work situation looks very much like one in which a new boss wants to eventually replace the existing staff with a new one, replacing older workers with younger ones, women with men and disabled workers with non disabled ones. His strategy relies on bullying and harassment, overworking existing employees, or dismissing them for failing to complete impossible tasks.

You are now being targeted. He is possibly setting you up to fail and then dismissing you on the grounds of capability, or even relying on you suffering so much that you leave for health reasons. Your new director and situation at work sound like a nightmare. The current recession is making workers more vulnerable to unfair treatment at work, many of whom just simply tolerate it to safeguard their jobs.

But I can assure you that you have legal rights at work that protect you against mistreatment, particularly on the grounds of discrimination based on your age, sex and disability. The first thing you could do is to file a grievance against this director for discriminatory bullying and harassment and for being overworked. (See our Dealing with discrimination at work – how to use the grievance procedure for more information.) Your employer should give you support and take your complaint seriously.

Unfortunately, the risk is that if you file a grievance you may be treated even worse for complaining about the discrimination (the legal term for this is 'victimisation'). If the situation becomes intolerable, you might consider going on authorised sick leave due to stress.

I would advise you to get a medical report (from your doctor or consultant), confirming that you are suffering from Parkinson's, and that 'reasonable adjustments' should be made. Your employer has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments to your working conditions so that you can cope at work, the most obvious of which is to reduce the amount of work given to you. If you find yourself dismissed, your remedy is to file a tribunal claim for unfair dismissal and discrimination on the grounds of age, sex and disability - see the links on the right hand side.

Sadly, employment legislation and the courts do not have the power to sort out problems at work, but are able only to 'react' to breaches of employment rights. You might want to consider using the services of ACAS to mediate a solution that would involve a termination package, for example, compensation and a job reference. I must advise you strongly against resigning from your job, except as part of an exit package.

It's very important that you get more advice on the different options you have available to you - see our Get discrimination advice pages. There are time limits for things like filing a grievance and taking a case to tribunal so it's a good idea to act quickly. Good luck and you have my sympathies.

They want to keep the most experienced staff

Dear Richard
It looks like my employer is going to make lay offs. They've said they want to keep the most experienced staff. I have 13 years of experience, but have some medical issues which have cost the company £200,000 in medical expenses. If they let me go, but keep someone who only has two years experience, will I have grounds to sue on health discrimination?

Richard says:
With the current recession, your question about redundancy will be of interest to many people. I am assuming that you suspect that the real reason for your possible redundancy is because you are costing your employer £200,000 a year in medical fees. If this were the case, then any redundancy could be unfair and discriminatory on the grounds of disability, depending on the nature and extent of your medical condition.

You say that your employer would be using work experience as the selection criteria for redundancy, with the less experienced making way for the more experienced. You have 13 years work experience compared to someone else with only two years experience, who may be kept on in preference to you.

You need to check what the company’s redundancy policy states as the redundancy selection criteria. A lot will depend on who else may be made redundant: how much work experience do they have? What are their medical fees? Making such a comparison might confirm or allay your suspicions.

The main rationale for redundancies is to cut costs. Saving on medical fees could be used as a fair redundancy selection criteria. But if such a policy adversely impacts on you more than non disabled workers, then you might have a disability claim, based on your employer’s failure to make reasonable adjustments. This is because such a policy would put you at a substantial disadvantage compared to non disabled workers, and consequently medical costs should not be used as a policy.

But certainly if the redundancy selection criteria being used is a sham, then any redundancy would certainly be unfair and possibly discriminatory. This is a very complex area of law; and you should seek expert advice.

I want to leave as soon as I can

Dear Richard
I am currently suffering discrimination at work. I have had several racist comments made to me by the same person. I am also being isolated because my manager wants me to learn how to do sales and it has upset some of the other members of staff in sales. Guess who I get the racist comments from - the Sales Manager. She gets into little cliques - it's bullying.

I just want to leave this job as soon as I can. I hate being here.

Richard says:
My first piece of advice is that you should not resign, since this is probably what they want you to do. If life is unbearable at work and it is making you ill, take sick leave (so long as you are covered by sick notes).

In the long term, if you cannot work there and the company does not want you there, you might consider a termination package whereby you agree with them to leave your employment, in return for financial compensation and an agreed job reference. But you will need expert advice before taking such a drastic step.

But if you think that things can be sorted out at work, you might consider asking for a transfer, if that is an option. You should certainly think about filing a grievance about the harassment (see our guide on using the grievance procedure). Keep a diary of incidents and make sure all communications are in writing.

Your options really depend on whether there is any hope of continuing work at the company. It is an unfortunate fact of life that it is usually the victim that feels that they have to leave. A good employer should take your grievance seriously and suspend the perpetrator, pending the investigation and take appropriate disciplinary action if your complaint is upheld.

Sadly, in such situations of conflict at work, management tends to close ranks and this is why you are feeling isolated. The important thing to remember is that you haven't done anything wrong and you do have employment rights. You should seek further advice from legal advisers. Racial discrimination and bullying is unlawful and you have the legal right sue at tribunal. (See the links on the right hand side for more information on this.)

He says he doesn’t want any 'coffin dodgers' in his office

Dear Richard
What do I do about my situation? My boss has a problem with my age (58). He has told me in a meeting he does not want any more coffin dodgers in his office. I have had the union in five times and my boss won't help sort it. HR are full of promises and don't carry them out. Management are now suggesting I have the disability called Dyscalculia (dyslexia by numbers). Please help.

Richard says:
There appears to be two issues concerning your problem at work, namely, possible age discrimination and disability discrimination.

The law prohibits harassment (unwanted behaviour that you find humiliating, offensive or distressing) on the grounds of age. The use of the term 'coffin dodger' could be construed as ageist bullying. You don’t have to put up with this: the law is there to protect you.

Is there a risk that your boss wants to force you into retirement? If so, you need to find out if there is a normal retirement age at your workplace. If not, your employer can lawfully retire you at 65 years. But you have the right to request working beyond that age. What your employer cannot do is to force you to retire at 58 years, unless this can be justified. For more information on the rules about retirement see the links on the right hand side.

I presume that your union complained five times, on your behalf. If these complaints mentioned discrimination, then you are protected against victimisation (being treated worse for complaining about discrimination) by the company.

It appears as though your employer obtained a company medical report that diagnosed your medical condition as a form of dyslexia. If you disagree with this medical assessment, you can obtain your own medical report from your own doctor. If you are diagnosed as dyslexic, you may be regarded as a disabled person, and consequently, your employer has a legal duty to make 'reasonable adjustments', to enable you to cope at work (particularly in dealing with numbers).

Reasonable adjustments could include: allocating number based duties to colleagues, giving you non number based duties, giving you time off for classes and treatment, giving you extra training and supervision, modifying equipment and manuals, and even giving you another job! Your employer should get a medical report to recommend such reasonable adjustments, and have a consultation meeting with you.

If you have a medical report already check it for any mention of reasonable adjustments to see if they are being offered to you.

Then, I advise that you get your union, an advice agency or a solicitor to help you lodge a formal grievance about your treatment at work (in writing). You need to check you company's grievance policy. You can read more about this in our guide 'Dealing with discrimination at work. How to use the grievance procedure’.

They're giving my job to someone younger and cheaper

Dear Richard
I am 21 years old and currently working as a cleaner and barmaid in a club, I have found out that I'm losing my job.

The club committee were trying to reduce staff working hours but said at a meeting that no one would lose their job. I was then told that one person from the committee and the stewardess have discussed to take shifts from me, even though this was not discussed at the meeting with other committee members present.

I am losing my two nights of bar work yet they are giving my shifts to a 17 year old, who was just a pop boy (collecting glasses) before. I was told it was so that they could pay him the lower minimum wage.

I think this is wrong as they are taking away my job and giving it to someone else. I am confused as well as upset about this matter and would be grateful if you could help me.

Richard says:
I understand that you are a 21 years old female (presumably on minimum wage), and you have lost two night shifts of bar work to a younger, 17 years old, male worker. I presume that your cleaning job is unaffected. You have heard that the reason for this treatment is so that the company can pay him less (minimum wage) than you.

The law on the minimum wage allows employers to pay differently aged workers different wages for doing the same work. But what the company has done is to take away some of your work, and given it to a younger worker, and thereby pay less minimum wage. It is illegal to redistribute existing work on the grounds of age, which is what the club seem to have done.

You may have been discriminated against because of your age. This is unlawful. The fact that the company is trying to save money is irrelevant and is not a valid defence. You may also have a sex discrimination claim if you believe that your treatment was because you are a woman. My advice is to file a grievance, complaining of age and sex discrimination. (You can read more about grievances in our guide, 'Dealing with discrimination at work'). But because of the complexity of the law, you are well advised to seek further legal advice on this matter. See 'Get advice'.

An adviser can explain your other options, for example, if filing a grievance does not get results, you can bring a tribunal claim against your employer for age and sex discrimination. If you are successful, you can be awarded compensation for injury to feelings and for the lost wages as a result of losing your work hours.
I notice that your employer may be using a 17 year old to serve alcoholic drinks. This is unlawful, since the minimum age limit is 18 years old. You and your adviser could consider raising this point with your employer. If you are victimised for raising this as an issue, the 'whistle blowing' legislation can protect you for mentioning this matter. See the links on the right hand side for more information on these issues.

March 2010