Employment tribunal win
by Andrew Harding

A 2003 case emphasises that employers may be required to adjust selection interviews so that people who stammer are not disadvantaged.

An employment tribunal has found that an employer had a clear onus under the Disability Discrimination Act to adjust a selection interview process, beyond interviewers giving sympathetic and well-meaning treatment.

The tribunal said that the person who had a severe stammer and failed to get the job was subject to discrimination at the selection interview because no changes were made to the process once it became clear the applicant was at a substantial disadvantage. Oral skills were not crucial to the post of census support officer and the applicant's lack of fluidity of speech could have been compensated for in both the interview and the employment.

The applicant declared his stammer on the application form and did not ask for specific adjustments. "In the past my experience has been that if I've requested adjustments I have not been shortlisted," he told the tribunal. Although the employer accepted the applicant was disabled, the applicant argued successfully that he could not be expected to suggest all his own adjustments to cope with a recruitment process about which he was not fully informed. The tribunal said the employer should not have relied on the applicant to ask for adjustment to be made.

The 'question and answer' session at the final stage of the recruitment process was particularly important under the scoring system. The applicant considered the 'text to speech' technology he used for a presentation would have been slow and cumbersome during the question and answer session, for which about 50% more time was given. But the tribunal found that the employer failed to make sufficient reasonable adjustments for this session, and made suggestions on what the employer could have done:
Adjourning the question and answer session and devising a suitable format
Written answers could have been sought to the pre-set questions
More time could have been allocated to allow the use of the 'text to speech' technology
Expert advice could have been sought as to the availability and usability of other computerised aids
The question and answer session could then have been planned in advance with a flexible approach.

The case is not a binding precedent although interesting particularly for people who stammer. The tribunal was clear that the onus was on the employer to take the lead in making adjustments; even so an applicant may want to raise the issue and make suggestions.

There is more on the case at www.stammeringlaw.org.uk.

From the Winter 2003 edition of Speaking Out

Thanks to Allan Tyrer for help with the preparation of this article.

See also:
Reviewing the DDA - overview of the position from October 2004
No discrimination please, we're European - changes happening in October 2004
Employment - index page