Archive for category Disability Discrimination
Deaf Student Lodges Disability Discrimination Claim Against the London Metropolitan University
Posted by Rob in Disability Discrimination on June 30, 2007
Since 1st September 2003, colleges of Further & Higher Education have been obliged by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) to supply auxiliary aids and services to disabled students.
John Savva is profoundly deaf. He started his undergraduate degree course in Sept 2005 with the help of a Disabled Students Allowance. He was assessed as needing British Sign Language interpreters at lectures and for group work, and a note-taker at all course related sessions. It was estimated that the standard Allowance would not be adequate by some £10,000, to pay for all his learning support needs.
The Disability Rights Commission’s Code of Practice for providers of post 16 Education envisages “instances when disabled students might need reasonable adjustments to be provided by the institution in addition to those resourced through their disabled students’ allowances”.
The University’s approach was to offer him a maximum, and insufficient, amount of £3,500 per year which they obtained through the Access to Learning Fund. This figure did not take into account his individual needs.
Mr Savva struggled to keep up with his studies, only half of his lectures were interpreted and he was provided with no notetakers. He may have to give up his course if he cannot get sufficient support to meet his needs.
Jocelyn Murphy of the Disability Law Service who is representing John Savva says –
“To my knowledge this is the first case to make use of the auxiliary services provision in the DDA and highlights the barriers deaf students have to undertaking and completing higher education courses”.
Human rights and disabled people
Posted by Rob in Disability Discrimination, Human rights on April 30, 2007
I was reading Disability Rights in Europe: from theory to practice, and came across a reference to the cases of Skjoldager v Sweden1 and Malone v UK2 at the European Court of Human Rights (“the ECtHR”).
Skjoldager v Sweden
The applicant, a psychologist, visited a care home for people with learning difficulties where he found a number of residents unlawfully locked in their rooms. Following his report, action was taken which eventually resulted in the removal of the locks. He was, however, denied further access to the residents. Where unlawful detention of this nature has occurred, Article 5(5) requires that compensation be paid. Because none was offered to the residents, the applicant complained to the European Commission. He did so in a represenative capacity, but in his own name because the muncipality had refused to provide him with the names of the residents (who were incapable of lodging the complaints themselves). The case was rejected on the ground that the applicant had no specific authority to make the complaint. The residents were, therefore, effectively outside the protection of the Convention.
Malone v UK
Mandy Malone, a wheelchair user, was the defendant in possession proceedings relating to her council house. Her request that these be heard in a court near to her home was refused. Consequently, in order to reach the court, she had to leave home at 4.30am and undertake a 950 kilometre round trip. As a result, she was confined to her bed for four days and requried medical assistance. Her complaint related to the unfairness of the process and the inaccessibility of the court building (she had to be carried up the steps of the court and experienced ‘excruciating discomfort’ due to the lack of suitable toilet facilities). The Strasbourg complaint was rejected on the grounds that she had ‘failed to appropriately bring to the attention of the court her difficulties’3.
These two cases serve as a reminder of how difficult it can be to enforce disability rights at the ECtHR, and that the ECtHR”continues to have profound difficulty in identifying and addressing state responsibility for discrimination against disabled people”4. Indeed, there is a paradox here, as the Convention is also silent on the rights of children and gay and lesbian people, but this has not prevented the ECtHR developing caselaw to remdy the injustices they face.
If the ECtHR had some imagination, they would ensure that Article 14 specifically includes disability as an example of unlawful discrimination.
Deaf blood donors refused
Posted by Alison in Disability Discrimination on October 2, 2004
A Deaf couple was refused as blood donors, by the National Blood Service, on the basis that the service could not guarantee that they would understand the questions asked.
The Deaf couple had volunteered to find an interpreter, which caused the NBS to respond:
“For their own safety, we ask volunteers some very intimate questions about their health and behaviour in a one-to-one interview. We have to be sure they have understood the questions and are in a position to give their consent.
“Sadly, we don’t have extra staff available to sit in on the interview and, because of the nature of the questions, a partner or friend can’t act as interpreter. There is no question of discrimination against deaf people. We are completely inclusive – we invite everyone to come along and volunteer.
“But there is no human right to give blood. It is our responsibility to protect the integrity of the blood supply and we can pick and choose who we take donations from.”
Links: This is Wiltshire and Western Daily Press, Bristol.
Barristers & DDA 1995 (Amendment) Regulations 2003
Posted by Alison in Disability Discrimination on September 21, 2004
On the 1 October 2004, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Amendment) Regulations 2003 come into force. Amongst other provisions, it provides for non-discrimination in respect of barristers. The relevant sections are below, for information.
Read the rest of this entry »
1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton [2003]
Posted by Alison in Disability Discrimination on September 9, 2004
In short, the following judgement holds that Barristers’ Chambers are not covered by the Disability Discrimination Act for the purposes of securing a pupillage or being accepted by chambers. Thus Deaf and disabled (trainee) barristers have no legal protection against Chambers, and can be discriminated against.
1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton [2003] EWCA Civ 941
Facts: Horton applied for a pupillage, and was offered one of two available places for a year commencing October 2001. In September 2001 he became ill, and applied for a postponement, to begin in October 2002. The Chambers decided not to grant him a deferral. Effectively, as the ET found, that decision prevented him from taking a pupillage with the Chambers.
Read the rest of this entry »
Iberia’s Press Release
Posted by Alison in Disability Discrimination on August 1, 2004
Following the Iberia fiasco, over Deaf people being allowed to board a plane by themselves, and secondly without advance warning; Iberia issued the following Press Release:
Last week the media ran several features informing of an incident on an aircraft with a group of young people with hearing problems and some reports describe it as a form of discrimination. Iberia as the airline operating the flight feels that the reports have been rather one-sided and a more in depth look at the facts would have shown the incident in a different light.
We apologise to the young people and their families for any inconvenience caused but we feel we followed the correct course of action under the circumstances.
The reservation for this group was incorrectly made in 5 different bookings where the correct procedure with any group would have been to contact the airline directly.
There was no remark in any of these reservations with reference to the condition of the passengers. A mandatory requirement, which allows the airline to make provision for any special needs of our passengers. Iberia does not exclude any passenger but we do need to know of any special circumstance, which may need to be catered for.
This mistake placed Iberia in an impossible situation. When faced with an aircraft about to take off with an indeterminate number of passengers with hearing problems who had not been identified, for whom no seating arrangements had been made and for whom there was no group leader accepting responsibility. Imagine the chaos in an emergency situation during their flight where the crew is not aware that more than 20 passengers cannot hear or speak and it is not even known where they are seated or how to communicate with them?
We could have allowed them to take off in the hope that nothing would happen as many have suggested. This would certainly have been the more comfortable solution for the airline. Nevertheless, we opted for the more sensible route and asked the passengers to postpone their flight, provided them accommodation, tickets for carers, and rebooked them on a flight the next morning.
We at Iberia decided to take an unpopular and costly decision knowing we might face some criticism. However we do not compromise on safety and we expect this is something that our young passengers and their families appreciate.
This type of Press Release, and the attitude contained within it highlights the need for the DDA to cover transport, moveover to extend anticipatory duty to the DDA as a whole.
The concept of anticipatory duty in the field of disability discrimination, was introduced in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. This has not being extended to the rest of the DDA, but the Press Release above illustrates that there is a need for this.
‘Iberia does not exclude any passenger but we do need to know of any special circumstance, which may need to be catered for.’
a) what happened to preparation in advance, what would we do if a Deaf person became our customer, instead of panic if a Deaf person turns up; and
b) why does Iberia need to know of special circumstance? If they have
theinformation, they aren’t able to learn BSL in a week. In any case, what amounts to this being ’special’?
Iberia’s stance fails to recognise that Deaf people can be just as much a minority language group as people who speak Welsh or Urdu – what happens when staff are unable to communicate with these people? The call for carers and a lack of group leader smacks of patronising Deaf people.
This smacks of discrimination of the highest order, and the safety excuse is a veil.
Please get the DDA extended to transport, double quick.
Iberia and Ebookers
Posted by Rob in Disability Discrimination on July 26, 2004
There has been recent publicity about a group of 23 Deaf Mary Hare Grammar School students being told to leave their plane because they did not have a “carer” with them. What exactly is the legal position here?
What happened?
The group of 23 were due to go on holiday to the Canary Islands on Thursday 22 July after completing their A Levels. They got on their Iberia Airlines plane, and were told to leave by staff because they were not allowed to travel without escorts, simply because they were deaf.
Why?
Iberia Airlines defended its actions saying that it was only following regulations, although the UK Civil Aviation Authority says it has no such regulation.
ebookers.com (the travel company that the 23 booked their flight with) said: “The group were regrettably mistakenly booked by bookers to exceed airline restrictions on the number of persons with disabilities Iberia are able to carry on any one flight, without carers.”
It would appear therefore that the reason this embarrassing incident occurred is because an unamed aviation regulation states that Deaf individuals are not allowed to fly in groups. If a group of Deaf want to fly, they must have hearing carers (sic) to accompany them. Also, it is apparently the travel agent’s duty to inform the airline if a large group of Deafies are travelling with them.
What’s wrong with this?
A great deal. 23 Deaf individuals were denied their right to fly on an aeroplane simply because they are Deaf. Iberia Airlines have not stated the full authority for this decision, and indeed, the UK Civil Aviation Authority has denied that one exists.
And besides, when did Deaf people need “carers”?!
What is the legal position?
In the UK, disability discrimination is governed by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Unfortunately, it does not extend to transport. The Disability Rights Commission’s website says:
Most services are covered by the DDA. Anyone who provides a service to the public or a section of the public is a service provider. There are a few exceptions: private clubs that have a meaningful selection process for members, transport (but only the transport vehicle, not everything else connected with it such as stations, airports and booking facilities) and education (DRC).
This means that the 23 Deaf students cannot challenge Iberia Airlines under the DDA 1995. There are no other avenues to explore.
Attitudes
The BBC report quoted that
Despite their disability? How patronising is that? This reeks of the usual “Awh, poor deafies, they can’t do anything for themselves. Isn’t it sweet that they’re going off on holiday on their own after working so hard in school?”. And from a parent of a Deaf person too!
This is further evidence of why attitudes towards the Deaf community in the UK needs to change and why grass roots organisations such as the British Deaf Association and the Federation of Deaf People should be fully supported by the Deaf community at large. The FDP and BDA and other Deaf organisations should campaign to remove the transport exemption under the DDA 1995.
Useful links
Contact details for Iberia Airlines if you want to lodge a complaint about their appalling treatment of Deaf people
ebookers.com if you want a lodge a complaint with them for sucking up to Iberia Airlines
DPTAC: Access to air travel: guidance for disabled and less mobile passengers
NB. Quotes in this entry are taken from BBC News
Proposed Commission for Equality & Human Rights
Posted by Alison in Disability Discrimination on May 24, 2004
Last week a White Paper was published: Fairness for All: A New Commission for Equality and Human Rights by the DTI.
It is proposed that a single body is established combining the existing Commissions: Disability Rights Commission, Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission; in addition to providing support for the first time, Human Rights, as prescribed by the Human Rights Act 1998.
Without having read the paper, personally welcome such a move, as it merges each of the Commissions, and quite frankly could leave scope for not treating issues in particular vacuums. For example, one could be the subject of disability discrimination in addition to sex equality issues.
However, we do still have some way to go in bringing laws into line, and I would hope that primary legislation addresses this. For example, whilst there is such a concept of indirect discrimination in relation to sex, nothing exists in terms of disability. This puts disabled people at a significant disadvantage.
Another advantage of a single commission enables scope to be widened in future. For example, I have to identify myself as disabled this is what administrative systems demand of me, if I seek redress. Incorporation of a single commission, I would hope that it would allow secondary legislation scope to expand its remit to cover discrimination in relation to minority languages; including British Sign Language (BSL), should much sought after policy development and legislation happen.
In terms of management, I certainly would not support a move for such a body to be managed by the current DRC. DRC as it stands is not mainstream nor accessible enough, in representing out rights. Such a body would need to take the best from existing Commissions and incorporating this into a new body entirely.
For those wishing to respond to this consultation paper, the deadline is the 6 August 2004.