The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and psychiatry: lessons from the first seven years

Aims and MethodTo extract relevant information for clinicians from reported and/or accessible cases involving psychiatric illness brought under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA). Institutional databases were searched for DDA cases and relevant guidance from case law extracted.ResultsOver half the cases reaching higher courts involve psychiatric illness. A number of decisions provide guidance for clinicians wishing to aid their own patients, and those involved as expert witnesses. These cover which conditions are included as impairments (almost everything in ICD–10), what associated effects are to be considered, and the relevance of comorbidity and treatment. Cases often involve recovery of clinical documents that reveal interesting variation in professional standards.Clinical ImplicationsVirtually all patients of psychiatrists in secondary care would be covered by the DDA. Knowledge of this Act could be used to enhance a patient's access to employment and services, and potentially overcome some of the effects of stigmatisation.

Download Full-text

An unquiet mind in the workplace: mental illness and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Legal Studies ◽

10.1111/j.1748-121x.2004.tb00261.x ◽

2004 ◽

Vol 24 (4) ◽

pp. 516-539 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Grace James

Keyword(s):

Mental Illness ◽

Labour Market ◽

Case Law ◽

Welfare To Work ◽

Current Policy ◽

Policy Makers ◽

Disability Discrimination ◽

Mentally Impaired ◽

Disability Discrimination Act ◽

The Relationship

New Labour's recent ‘Welfare to Work’ policies encourage people with disabilities, where possible, to enter and participate in the workplace. The current policy of ‘inclusion’ is supported by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA), which came into force in December 1996 providing those who are discriminated against on the grounds of their disability with an action against their employer. Drawing upon recently decided case law, this paper considers what the DDA offers those who are discriminated against because of a mental illness. I argue that policy-makers, courts and tribunals, because the relationship between physical and mental impairments is often misunderstood, fail to reflect the varied nature of or understand the stigma associated with, mental ill health. The law is thus at present incapable of providing adequate protection for mentally impaired individuals who attempt to participate or remain in the labour market, and new approaches, which are sensitive to the diverse nature of disability, need to be considered.

Download Full-text

The Employer's Duty to Make Reasonable Adjustments. When is a Reasonable Adjustment, Not Reasonable?

International Journal of Discrimination and the Law ◽

10.1177/135822910901000302 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 10 (3) ◽

pp. 111-131 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Stephen Bunbury

Keyword(s):

Case Law ◽

Physical Feature ◽

Steady Increase ◽

Foreseeable Future ◽

Disabled People ◽

Disability Discrimination ◽

The Disabled ◽

Disability Discrimination Act ◽

The Impact

This article considers the impact of the reasonable adjustments duty imposed upon employers in section 4A of the Disability Discrimination Act (1995) where a provision, criterion, practice, or physical feature of the premises of the employer places the disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled. It considers that while the duty to make reasonable adjustments has contributed to the rising rates of employment among disabled people, an examination of the Employment Tribunal and EAT Statistics (GB) conversely reveals that there has been a steady increase in cases of disability discrimination in recent years. It is argued that the complexity of section 4A and the ensuing case law have contributed to the rising tide of cases in this field and is a trend which is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

Download Full-text

Mutuality and solidarity: assessing risks and sharing losses

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences ◽

10.1098/rstb.1997.0082 ◽

1997 ◽

Vol 352 (1357) ◽

pp. 1039-1044 ◽

Cited By ~ 17

Author(s):

David Wilkie

Keyword(s):

Genetic Information ◽

Social Insurance ◽

Private Insurance ◽

Relevant Information ◽

Mortality Rates ◽

Good Faith ◽

Disability Discrimination ◽

Other Information ◽

Utmost Good Faith ◽

Disability Discrimination Act

Mutuality is the principle of private, commercial insurance; individuals enter the pool for sharing losses, and pay according to the best estimate of the risk they bring with them. Solidarity is the sharing of losses with payment according to some other scheme; this is the principle of state social insurance; essential features of solidarity are comprehensiveness and compulsion. Private insurance is subject to the uberrima fides principle, or utmost good faith; each side declares all it knows about the risk. The Disability Discrimination Act requires insurers to justify disability discrimination on the basis of relevant information, actuarial, statisical or medical, on which it is reasonable to rely. it could be very damaging to private insurance to abandon uberrima fides . However, although some genetic information is clearly useful to underwriters, other information may be so general as to be of little use. The way in which mortality rates are assessed is also explained.

Download Full-text