Home

Overview

Disability

Employment

Services

Education

Benefits

Business

Advice

Links

More...

Disclaimer - please read

These pages do not apply outside the United Kingdom.

Employment: Examples of reasonable adjustments

This page, aimed at both people who stammer and employers, gives examples of possible reasonable adjustments in the employment context for people who stammer. For the DDA employment rules in general see my employment page.

Introduction Recruitment and promotion: Interviews - oral Interviews - written Interviews - use of technology Aptitude or other tests Presentations

On the job and other adjustments Fluency device Telephone Meetings Presentations Staff courses Speech therapy Training Re-allocating duties Transfer to another job Assessment or appraisals Disability awareness training Other sources

The "Code" means the 2004 Code of Practice: Employment and Occupation (pdf file on EHRC website). Section references are to DDA 1995 as amended, available on the DRC website - 'DDA and related statutes'. Summary of reasonable adjustment rules: Where a provision, criterion or practice applied by or on behalf of an employer places a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with non-disabled people, the employer is obliged to take such steps as it is reasonable, in the circumstances, for him to have to take in order to prevent the provision, criterion or practice having that effect. Provision, criterion or practice includes any "arrangements". The employer sometimes has a 'lack of knowledge' defence. The legislation gives examples of adjustments, many of which I mention below, and of factors to be taken into account in deciding what is reasonable. More detail on the reasonable adjustment rules...

Introduction

One of the most important parts of the DDA is the employer's obligation to make reasonable adjustments. The legislation gives examples of adjustments, many of which I mention below, and of factors to be taken into account in deciding what is reasonable. (More detail on the reasonable adjustment rules...)

Advance notice to the employer may make adjustments more likely in practice, and sometimes helps an argument by a person who stammers that they are 'reasonable'. 

What follows are just possible examples of reasonable adjustments. (Further suggestions are welcome - atyrer2000@yahoo.co.uk.) What is appropriate and reasonable will depend on the circumstances, and different people who stammer have different needs. It may be a good idea for the employer and the person who stammers to discuss what is appropriate.

This page is not restricted to the reasonable adjustment duty. Some examples below arise from the duty to avoid unlawful 'less favourable treatment'. For example, recruitment decisions should be based on what is relevant for the particular job.

The recruitment process, including promotion

An employer can appoint the best person for the job (bearing in mind any adjustments that will be reasonable in the job). However, without reasonable adjustments to the recruitment process, it may not become apparent that the person who stammers is the best person for the job.

See Y v Calderdale Council (2003), Y v Bradford Council (2006) and Wakefield v HM Land Registry (July 2007) for examples of cases where the tribunal held that an employer had failed to make sufficient reasonable adjustments to the recruitment process for a person who stammers. In the Calderdale case, the tribunal found that the applicant would have had a 50-50 chance of getting the job had proper adjustments been made.

Job specifications

• These should not contain unnecessary or marginal requirements which unjustifiably discriminate against people who stammer (para 7.7 of Code)

Interviews - oral

• Interviewers and managers may want to read British Stammering Association's In conversation with a person who stammers (on BSA website). BSA also has guides for employers and employees.

  Longer time for interview - This will be appropriate for some people who stammer (cf para 7.22 of Code). However, it is not necessarily sufficient. It was held insufficient in Y v Calderdale Council, where use of written answers or technology should have been considered, and in Wakefield v HM Land Registry (under appeal) where written answers should have been allowed.
  • According to the Wakefield case (if upheld), allowing written answers rather than a longer time for an oral interview is not limited to situations where the person is stammering severely, and written answers may be appropriate even if the job requires oral skills.
• Interviewers' awareness - interviewers should be aware of stammering issues, and can get information from the British Stammering Association. For example:
  • be aware that people who stammer may substitute words they can say for words they cannot;
  • consider ignoring 'over use' of 'filler/comfort' words or terms such as 'you know' and 'in fact', which a person may use to help them get through anticipated dysfluency;
  • don't say things like "we have a certain amount of time", which puts time pressure on the person.
• It is very possible that the person will communicate more easily in the work situation than in the interview. When considering how the employee's communication will be when in post, the employer should bear in mind that the degree of stammering heard at the interview may well be significantly increased by that particular environment.
  • The employment tribunal stressed this point in Wakefield v HM Land Registry (which is, however, under appeal). It was not reasonable to test at interviews a person known to have a stammering problem in that context when the aim was to ascertain how he would cope with challenges in a work context.
  • Also, a court in Ohio held that a stutterer was entitled to be a firefighter (external link - under Heading II), where "clear, concise, and timely communication in the context of fighting a fire is an essential function of the job". On the facts, he was able to meet that requirement while doing the job, even though he stuttered more severely at an interview.
  • Where oral communication skills are required in the job, it may well be appropriate for the employer to consider the applicant's work history or other evidence, for evidence of the relevant skills in the actual type of situation the person will meet in the job.
    • If it is a promotion, managers and perhaps colleagues could be asked about the person's oral skills in actual work situations. Appraisals may well not be sufficient as they are written to a script (Wakefield v HM Land Registry).
    • In the case of a job applicant who is not already working for the employer, it may help to take references before the interview rather than after a conditional job offer, or the person who stammers might perhaps be given the benefit of the doubt as to their oral abilities in the job subject to references. Of course, people's caution as to what they write in references needs to be borne in mind.
    • The applicant could be given the opportunity to produce written evidence, eg narrative about or testimonials from previous jobs showing evidence of oral skills.
  • Where a test of oral skills is required, see Aptitude and other tests below on using a specific skills test designed for the requirements of the job, rather than using the interview as a test of general oral skills.(Note that avoiding/substituting difficult words is not something to recommend to a person who stammers. Speech therapy tends to encourage people who stammer to move away from doing so. However, this is an adjustment which some people may welcome.)
• Work trial - the employer might allow a trial period as well as or instead of an interview. This may be more effective than an interview in showing how any applicant performs in the job - but particularly so where the applicant has difficulty speaking in an interview.
• Supplementing interview with written sources - Not giving due weight to written sources is likely to penalise a person who has difficulty speaking. Even if given more time, a person who stammers may say less because they find it difficult to speak. This may not be readily apparent, or interviewers may feel he is not answering questions 'properly' or 'fully' - as in Wakefield v HM Land Registry (under appeal) and Reasonable adjustment settlement. In any event, the applicant may not communicate enough through speech to score as they should vis-a-vis other candidates. The solution may be to allow written answers to interview questions, but these are some possible alternatives:
  • The employer might allow the applicant a chance after the interview to write up anything he was unable to say at the interview. This has some limitations compared with written interviews, in particular once out of the interview the applicant may find it difficult bring to mind what he would like to have added at various different points in the interview. That could possibly be helped by allowing the candidate to make brief notes in the interview to remind him of anything he wants to write afterwards.
  • Interviewers could supplement interview answers with written information from the person's application form and other papers if they would not otherwise do so, giving the written information no less weight than the interview answers (see Reasonable adjustment settlement, and Wakefield v HM Land Registry (under appeal)). Also see above on making use of references. It may well be unreasonable to mark the candidate down for failing to mention orally in response to a question something which is in their application or CV - eg where is apparent that they have a particular skill which was used in a previous job. Of course interviewers could also ask questions aimed at expanding on or verifying information given.
  • The applicant could be given the opportunity to produce written evidence, such as narrative about or testimonials from previous jobs showing evidence of skills. Where the applicant who stammers is given this opportunity, the employer may wish to extend it to other applicants so as to be able to compare like with like.
• Less interviewers? - Having fewer people present may put less pressure on the person's speech, and may be a reasonable adjustment. This could apply even where interviewer numbers are relatively small. By way of a rather extreme example, in one interview the whole university department was present.
• Type of chair - for a few people who stammer, a particular sitting position may help their speech. For example, those using a technique called 'vocal fold management' are likely to want an upright chair.
• Time to prepare words to be used: This will not be appropriate for everyone, but some people may find it useful to have time to prepare in terms of thinking how they can formulate answers using words they can say. People who stammer often have difficulty with particular sounds, and thus particular words. The person might be allowed a period before the interview where he is given the intended questions and perhaps guidance on what type of supplementaries might be asked. He would have the chance to identify and note down suitable words to use in his replies. He would be able to use these notes in the interview, in order to prompt him. However this adjustment was held insufficient in Wakefield v HM Land Registry (under appeal).
  
• Telephone interviews - some people who stammer find speaking on the phone particularly difficult. A phone interview may therefore put a person who stammers at a greater disadvantage. Phone interviews are often just used for initial screening, and one possible adjustment would be to just waive the person who stammers through the screening stage. Or it could be a reasonable adjustment to offer a face-to-face interview or non-oral arrangements instead.
  • If the employer would normally use a phone interview, he should ask the person who stammers whether he would be disadvantaged by that.
  • If a phone interview goes ahead and it is apparent that the person who stammers is being disadvantaged, it will probably be reasonable to suspend the interview and consider other arrangements. Compare Y v Calderdale Council in which the tribunal held it would have been reasonable to adjourn a face-to-face interview where the applicant was clearly having difficulty and devise a suitable alternative format. This may apply even if the applicant had agreed to a phone interview (see Y v Bradford Council where the time presentation exercise had been agreed but was held insufficient).

• In Y v Calderdale Council, the tribunal fully accepted that the applicant received sympathetic and well-meaning treatment from the two interviewers who tried to give him time to answer; refrained from interrupting him and made some gentle attempts to probe his answers. However, this was not sufficient to comply with the employer's duty to make reasonable adjustments under the DDA.

  Other adjustments/considerations -
  • A person who stammers may be even more stressed by an interview than other interviewees. He may come across as reticent, hesitant or confused, and perhaps use 'fillers' such as "You know", or substitute words, to help mask the stammer. Interviewers need to concentrate on what the person is saying rather than how he says it, and focus on how the person would be in the job rather than necessarily how he is in the interview.
  • An employer may be tempted to reject a person who stammers because he only made 'limited responses' at the interview (as in Y v Calderdale Council and Wakefield v HM Land Registry). This may well have been due to the time and effort it took him to speak, or perhaps avoiding words on which he felt he would stammer. The employer may not have made the necessary reasonable adjustments to enable the person who stammers to convey the information that other candidates are able to convey in the oral interview, and should consider arrangements to allow the person who stammers to do that, including written responses or use of technology, or taking into account written information (above).
  • Employer asking about the stammer - "The Act does not stop the employer seeking information about a disability. However, the Data Protection Code Of Practice on Employment and Recruitment... states that information should not be sought from applicants unless necessary to enable the recruitment decision to be made, or for a related purpose such as equal opportunities monitoring. Disability-related questions must not be used to discriminate against a disabled person. An employer should only ask such questions if they are, or may be, relevant to the person's ability to do the job - after a reasonable adjustment, if necessary..." (para 7.27 of Code). Talking about the stammer may be helpful so that the employer does not make unjustified assumptions and can find out about the individual's needs (para 2.4 - 2.6 of Code).

• Written answers - it may be reasonable for the applicant to be allowed to give written answers to the interviewers' list of pre-set interview questions (and possibly other questions), rather than having to answer orally.
  • This is not limited to where the person is stammering severely, nor is it excluded if the job requires oral skills. In Wakefield v HM Land Registry (which is under appeal) the emploment tribunal held that written answers should have been allowed even where outwardly the applicant did not stammer that much at the interview. This was because covert symptoms of the stammer such as word avoidance meant that he "failed to show in-depth experiences and examples," and was thus unable to build on the information in his application form like other candidates. Also, given that the person had a stammering problem in interviews, it was not reasonable to use these to ascertain how his oral skills would be on the job itself.
  • How much time to allow? It can be argued that any time limit for producing the written answers should enable the candidate to write the same amount as any interview time allowance allows other candidates to say. Eg if a particular person types or writes three times slower than normal speaking pace they should be allowed three times as long (see my comments on Y v Bradford Council).
    • If follow-up questions are dealt with separately afterwards (see below), it is arguably reasonable to reduce the full interview time allowance on which the calculation is based to reflect the fact that the time limit is only for initial answers and not follow-ups. This is tricky though as it is difficult to know in advance how far exploratory questions will be required.
  • The applicant should be given details in advance of how the selection process will run. The tribunal in Y v Bradford Council held that in failing to do this, the Council was in breach of its duty to make a reasonable adjustment. In particular the applicant should have been told how long he had to write answers, so that he could manage his time.
  • Follow-up questions: At least if the applicant wishes, consideration could be given to having any follow-up questions asked orally, exploring the written answers to the pre-set questions. Asking supplemental questions orally was suggested by the tribunal in Wakefield v HM Land Registry. If follow-ups are answered orally, further adjustments may be needed to help level the playing field, such as allowing enough time for the oral answers, and perhaps an opportunity after the oral follow-ups to write anything he was unable to say. Reasons to consider oral follow-ups:
    • Not allowing the applicant to interact with the panel may put him at a disadvantage, in that personal interaction can be a significant part of interviewers' assessment of a person (see my comment on Y v Bradford Council).
    • Not asking follow-ups at all to explore his answers may put him at a disadvantage if other candidates are asked follow-ups.
  • See generally Y v Bradford Council on arrangements for written responses, where the tribunal held the employer's arrangements to be insufficient, and also Y v Calderdale Council.
  • Written sources can also be combined with an oral interview - see above on Supplementing interview with written sources. For example, the employer might allow the applicant a chance after the interview to write up anything he was unable to say.

Interviews - use of technology

• Displaying text on large screen or wall: a job applicant who stammers might be provided with facilities for typing answers into a computer and these would be projected onto the wall or a large screen. Many of the issues discussed under TTS below apply here too. For an example where this was done and some discussion, see Projector case study.
• 'Text to speech' (TTS) technology might be used. This was done in part in Y v Calderdale Council, and it was considered by the tribunal in Y v Bradford Council. On TTS, see also the Presentations heading below, and adjustments for presentations during the job.
  • A person who brings their own laptop with TTS software is likely to need an appropriate seat and a table at the right height to rest the laptop on, as well as a power source. External speakers may also be required, sufficient to ensure that all the panel can hear easily. In Reasonable adjustment settlement it was argued that the arrangements were inadequate - the person was crouched up on a low seat without a suitable surface or speakers. What is required should be discussed with the applicant beforehand.
  • If the individual does not have their own laptop and 'text to speech' (TTS) software, and use of this technology is a reasonable adjustment in the circumstances, it may be reasonable for the employer to provide computer equipment and software as well.
  • Sufficient additional time will need to be allocated.
  • Depending on the circumstances, it may not be reasonable to mark an applicant down for lack of presentational skills for using such technology (or indeed for stammering).

Aptitude or other tests

Recruitment processes often require a presentation:

• Presentation skills not required in job - where the person specification for the post does not require an ability to give presentations, it may be reasonable to waive or modify the presentation. A person who stammers might, for example, submit a written paper of equivalent length. Another possibility is using a text-to-speech (TTS) computer programme.
• Presentation skills required in job - where presentation skills are relevant for the job, the employer should be looking at how the person will perform in the job situation rather than necessarily in a recruitment situation.
  • For example, evidence of the person's ability to give similar presentations in a previous job should be relevant.
  • Are there reasonable adjustments that can be made when the person makes presentations in the job, and which should therefore be reflected in any assessment? See Presentations below for some possible reasonable adjustments.
  • Use of text-to-speech (TTS) software and the fact that a presentation exercise was 'short-notice' (only 30 minutes preparation time was allowed) were discussed by an employment tribunal in Y v Bradford Council. The tribunal considered that as presentation skills were necessary for the job, the Council could reasonably have required the claimant to do an oral presentation exercise. However, if the claimant had been given advance notice of the question, he could have prepared his presentation with TTS software. Whether it would have been reasonable to drop the 'short-notice' element of the exercise would depend in part on whether presentations on short notice were in fact part of the job duties. For some practical considerations around using TTS, see also Use of technology above.

• Possible adjustments to assessed presentations - albeit in a higher education context - are discussed in Working with students who stammer (pdf, external link) on the De Montfort University website.

On the job and other adjustments

Other examples of possible adjustments (see generally section 18B(2), and para 5.18 of Code):

Fluency device

• An electronic fluency device (using DAF, FAF and/or masking) may help a person speak more fluently. See BSA website: Electronic fluency devices on these devices and possible suppliers.
• They are often expensive. An Access to Work grant may be available towards the cost, even if you are already employed.

Telephone

• BSA's 'Telephone calls' (on BSA website) includes tips, articles, technology and services and which may help with using the phone. See also my Telephone page, which brings together DDA issues to do with the phone.

  Where the job involves saying set phrases or following a set script, such as in a call centre or when first answering the phone, these could be modified to make them easier for the person to say.
  
  
• Modifying a target may be reasonable. For example, a call centre might modify a target of how many calls a person should get through in a particular time, or of how long a call is expected to last. One call centre modified the expected length of a call for a staff member who stammered.
  
  
• Open plan offices: some people who stammer find it particularly difficult speaking on the phone if work colleagues can overhear. Ideas that may help include:
  • making available a room for telephone calls, so that a person who stammers can be alone when on the telephone. If facilities for this are limited, the person who stammers might be allowed to use the boss's office if s/he is out.
  • The person who stammers might be given a relatively isolated part of an open plan office, such as a corner (if he or she wants that).
  • Alternatively, there may be a quieter time of day when the person would find it easier to make phone calls.
  • It may possibly help to use a phone plugged into a binaural headset which blocks out most of the noise from the rest of the office - so that even though colleagues can hear the person who stammers, the latter can concentrate more easily on the call. The headset might even be large padded headphones designed for noisy environments.
  • Where hot desking is used, so that people can sit anywhere in the office, the person who stammers may find it helpful to be able to stick to a particular chair/desk that they are familiar with, so far as possible.
    
    
• One person who stammers was given their own phone. They previously shared a phone, and had difficulty answering it when it could be any one of several people in the office that the caller wanted to speak to.
  
  
• Re-allocating duties: Answering the telephone - or possibly speaking on the phone generally - might be done by someone else if a person who stammers finds it a significant problem. It may not be reasonable for an employer to have to make this adjustment if the phone calls are a major part of the job. However, it may well be reasonable to re-allocate minor or subsidiary duties (section18B(2)(b), para 5.18 of the Code). Something that is often feasible is for others in the office to answer the phone whenever possible, with only calls specifically for the person who stammers then being put through to him or her.
  A deaf person has successfully argued that job tasks should have been rearranged so that he did not have to answer the phone, where the adjustment could have been done without any great expense or inconvenience on the part of the employer - see Victory for deaf man in landmark judgement (link to archived DRC website) 5/8/02.
  
  
• An electronic fluency device (DAF/FAF/masking) could help a person speak more fluently on the phone. Access to Work grants may be available towards the cost. See BSA website: Electronic fluency devices on these devices and their effectiveness, and possible suppliers (or specifically for phone devices you can do an internet search for 'telephone fluency system').
  There are also textphones and other ways of having a phone call without speaking - see BSA website: Making telephone calls without speaking.
  
  
• If a person who stammers has problems speaking on the phone, it may be feasible to make more use of alternative means of communication, such as email or writing. Where there is a limit on how many emails an employee is allowed to store, it may well be reasonable to increase any email storage limit for an individual who stammers.
  
  
• When off sick: allowing the person to email in that they are off sick, rather than requiring them to telephone. Indeed the person may find speech particularly difficult when they are ill.

Meetings

• It is often a good idea for the chair to ask the person who stammers in advance what would help them.
• Saying one's name when people go round the table introducing themselves can be a particular problem for someone who stammers. It is best for the chair to discuss with the person in advance how to handle this. One possible solution is for the person who stammers to go first - so they have less time to build up anxiety. Name badges may avoid people having to introduce themselves - but these are not sufficient if visually impaired people are present.
• A person who stammers may find it difficult to break in and speak at meetings. Again it is a good idea for the chair to discuss in advance with the person who stammers what would help. Examples are:
  • he could be asked what his views are. See example in Telling your managing director about stammering (link to BSA website) - 2nd paragraph from end;
  • an agreed signal might be used to let the chair know that the employee wants say something. It is best not to leave the employee waiting, but to allow them to make their point as quickly as possible without artificially interrupting the flow of discussion;
  • it could be agreed in advance with the employee at what point they may want to come into a discussion;
  • it may be reasonable for the chair to accommodate contributions to discussions that may be given at slightly inappropriate times or that interrupt the flow of discussion. The employee who stammers may have been trying for some time make the contribution.
  • (For many of these points I am indebted to Working with students who stammer (pdf, external link) on the De Montfort University website, about how lecturers can support students who stammer.)
• Extra time may need to be allowed for meetings.

Presentations

• The employer might ensure that the person who stammers has the support and preparation he needs to feel confident in the material.
• A person who stammers designed and ran a training session, and a colleague helped with the speaking under her direction. Feedback was very positive. See 'The reluctant campaigner' (link to BSA website), Summer 2006
• The presenter might put much of the information on Powerpoint slides so that pressure is taken off communicating the information orally. This may make speech easier.
• Text-to-speech technology can be used. TTS software and its possible use by a person who stammers for workplace presentations was considered by the tribunal to some extent in Y v Bradford Council. See also Use of technology above.
• Toastmasters, the Association of Speakers Clubs, and Speaking Circles may help people who stammer (and anyone) become more comfortable and skilled in making presentations - see on BSA website Public Speaking / Presentations.

Staff courses

• Possible adjustments to seminars and presentations are discussed in Working with students who stammer (pdf, external link) on the De Montfort University website.
• Examples of adjustments made by the employer in Alderson v Walkers Snack Foods were:
  • Someone who stammers not being required to read aloud, if he does no wish to. Where appropriate someone else might do the reading.
  • Being allowed not to take part in a role play, again if he does not wish to.
• In Alderson the employee argued that he should not have been required to give comments on issues arising from the role play. This could be another reasonable adjustment. However, on the facts of that case the tribunal found there was no discrimination (see heading 'Role play' in summary of judgment).
• Of course, the employer may also wish to build the person's self-confidence as part of his or her professional and personal development.
• Where the course practises what must be done in the job itself, an adjustment may not be reasonable except so far as it would be reasonable to make it on the job itself.

Speech therapy

• Time off:
  • There have been instances where employers gave paid time off for a speech therapy course or other stammering course:
    • For example, one employee was given paid time off for an intensive course totalling 3 weeks - two weeks followed by a period at work, then a final week.
    • In another instance, paid time off for a stammering course requiring a two day absence was given after instigating the employer's grievance procedure.

  • "It's fine if you stammer" After an employee had told her manager how her speech therapy course went, her manager said: "It's very good that you did the course, but you don't have to. It's fine if you stammer." The employee really appreciated this.

    Or it may be reasonable to allow leave (paid or unpaid) for regular speech therapy sessions.
  • As an alternative to trying to use the DDA, a person who stammers might ask his GP for a note saying he needs time off for 'treatment' - though letting the employer know it is for stammering may help in having it treated as disability leave rather than general sick leave (see below).
• Paying for course?: In some areas of the UK speech therapy is available free under the NHS, but sometimes it is not, or there may be other reasons to pay for a course (eg City Lit, McGuire Programme, Starfish Project, or an NLP course) or for a private speech and language therapist. Some employers have paid for speech therapy courses or other stammering courses, for example www.stammering.org/jmann.html. There the employer also paid for a place at the British Stammering Association conference. In another example, the employer paid half the cost of a stammering course and the union paid the other half. (For information on therapy and courses available, see the BSA website: Adult therapy and courses or call their helpline.)
• Excessive sick leave? Disability leave? Staff may be worried about being penalised for taking excessive sick leave for stammering treatment.
  • I know of an example where an employer classed a speech therapy course (for which the employer paid) as 'personal development'. This took it out of the employer's 'sickness' policy. The employee had identified it as a training need during an exercise to identify training needs for the team. It is possible that a speech therapy course was classifed similarly in www.stammering.org/jmann.html.
  • Otherwise, one should look at the particular organisation's sickness policy. By way of some general points:
    • Employers ought to distinguish in their records between disability-related absences and general sickness absence, and some have a specific policy for 'disability leave'.
    • Treatment for stammering should qualify as disability-related if the stammer is a 'disability'. Where therapy is being sought, the stammer is presumably that much more likely to be a disability, as its effects on normal day-to-day activities will usually be more than 'minor or trivial'.
    • Even disability-related absences may sometimes have adverse consequences. However, they are subject to the protections of the DDA and should not be dealt with in the same way as general sickness absences.
    • For more, see Section 3.29 Frequently asked questions about absences related to disability (link to archived DRC website).
• After course: After a stammering course the employer might ask the person who stammers if there is anything the employer can do to support them. For example, one person who stammers asked a particular colleague to let her know if she lost eye contact.
• DDA and Code of Practice: Section 18B(2)(f) mentions time off for treatment. Paragraph 5.18 of the Code gives as an example time off for rehabilitation training if a disability worsens or the person needs occasional treatment anyway.

Training

• The employee might be sent on a training course in, say, communication skills or telephone skills. Section 18B(2)(g) mentions giving or arranging training. There are issues of whether a particular training course falls within the reasonable adjustment duty, but the employer may be willing to send an employee on the course even if he is not obliged to under the DDA. See also speech therapy above.

Allocating some duties to another person

• (Section18B(2)(b)). See above for the example of phone calls. It may be reasonable to re-allocate only minor or subsidiary duties (para 5.18 of the Code).

Transfer to another job

• This could be relevant if, for example, a person's stammer become more severe or the oral demands of a job increase.
  • In 2004 the House of Lords in Archibald v Fife Council confirmed that transfer to another job might be required as a reasonable adjustment. It said that the obligation on the employer could include (if reasonable) waiving a requirement for competitive interviews where the employer normally required these, such as where the transfer would be to a higher grade job. Also a transfer could be upwards, as well as sideways or downwards.
  • Reasonable adjustments on redeployment of a person whose mental impairment included stuttering were considered in Heatherwood & Wrexham Park Hospitals Trust v Beer (June 2006).
  • Transfer to fill an existing vacancy is given as an example of a possible reasonable adjustment in section 18B(2)(c). Paragraph 5.18 of the Code says that an employer should consider whether a suitable alternative post is available for an employee who becomes disabled or whose disability worsens, where no reasonable adjustment would enable the employee to continue doing the current job. Such a post might involve retraining or other reasonable adjustments.

Assessment or appraisals

• Modifying procedures for assessment or appraisals (section 18B(2)(j) - on testing or assessment)

Disability awareness training

• Including speech impairments such as stammering in training for staff, for example how to communicate with someone who stammers. Training may also aim to reduce risk of harassment. From 1st October 2004, section 18B(2)(g) makes it it clearer that training for non-disabled staff can be a reasonable adjustment.

Other sources

Other sources on reasonable adjustments for people who stammer are the BSA booklets for people who stammer and employers, and the Employer's Forum on Disability's Briefing Paper: Employment adjustments for people who stammer (external link).

Top

Homepage | DDA in outline | Meaning of "disability" | Employment | Goods and services | Education | Human Rights Act | Proposed changes | Social security | Advice | Links | What's new | Site index | Disclaimer

© Allan Tyrer 1999-2007
Last updated 2nd December 2007

Employment menu

Main pages:

Employment
Employment FAQ
Adjustment examples
Justification
Job examples

More legal detail:

Basic rules
Direct discrimination
Justification
Reasonable adjustments
Harassment
Scope
Contract workers
Disputes
Employment Act 2002

Related areas

Qualifications bodies
Directors' reports