Memorandum from Philip Pool (DDB 42)
I am writing as an individual disabled person
about how the current DDA is being interpreted with the hope that
the issue will be addressed in the Bill. This interpretation interfers
with individual's rights to privacy.
The current requirement for employers to seek
information about their employees' disabilities is clearly intended
to prevent employers being complacent and not seeking that information.
However, some employers are interpreting that intention in a way
that I consider undermines individual's rights to privacy. For
example, my employers conditions state the following:
"Notification—if a member of your
staff tells you that they have a disability, you must let the
# team or their human resources advisor know without delay. You
should also tell human resources if you believe that a member
of staff has a disability, even if they have not expressly told
you that they have.
If a disabled person asks you not to tell human
resources, you should explain that you are required to do so by
the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, but that human resources
will treat the information in confidence."
I consider that that is effectively "outing"
disabled people who may have a good reason for not passing on
that information. The reasons may include; they have good reason
to believe that they will open themselves up to harassment; the
nature of their impairment is personal, such as incontinence or;
it is not relevant to the employer—eg they manage the incontinence
without need for an adjustment by their employer.
In a parallel situation, it may be desirable
for an employer to know whether members of staff are gay so that
it can assess whether positive diversity policies are working.
It would not, however, be acceptable to list staff on the basis
of another person's perception that they are gay and certainly
not if that person has asked explicitly asked not to be recorded
that way.
February 2004
| 
