Skip to main content
Close Button
Donate
  • Replies 32 replies
  • Subscribers 91 subscribers
  • Views 3890 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

Non employment disability discrimination

67justdiagnosed
over 1 year ago

I am 67 and have recently been diagnosed with ADHD, and Level 1 ASD, Aspergers Syndrome.

I also have diagnoses of:

PTSD;

Borderline Personality Disorder;

General Anxiety Disorder;

I am involved in a number of claims for Disability discrimination, and cannot find any solicitors to assist/advise on non employment disability discrimination cases. Can anyone recommend anyone? I approached a firm, who boast about their being austism friendly, and trained, who then never bothered to respond! 

I have recently suffered discrimination by a Solicitor, who denied that my behaviour was a direct result of my disability, despite having evidence that it was.

I am struggling and depressed. 

Parents
  • over 1 year ago

    Non  employment disability discrimination cases are usually decided  in small claims where  lawyers do not get paid by the other side if they win. The small claims track was intended to be usable without a lawyer after all. This is why  lawyers handling non-employment discrimination cases are very rare. Due to new rules I cannot give you anything like advice on how to Bring your own case. I can however tell you that I brought my own case and then made a website explaining the process. Areyoualien.uk

  • over 1 year ago in reply to Peter

    I am grateful for your response. Busy going through the site. 

    I am exhausted after 5 years of searching. 

  • over 1 year ago in reply to 67justdiagnosed
    Case 1. Filed. 
    Disability discrimination (DD) by doctor not providing reasonable adjustments, removing me from the register, and  committing contempt of court by outrageously stating I was not disabled in a statement of truth to the court. The doctor had full access to my medical reports and has been reckless with the truth. 
    I am unrepresented, and was never advised about ATE, exposing me to the other sides costs. 
    Case 2. Filed 
    Solicitors acting on my behalf for a personal injury claim were incompetent, and agreed to provide reasonable adjustments, but never provided them. After making a number of complaints, they neglected to forward to the opposition  5 medico legal reports, that they commissioned, to the other side. I found this out and the solicitors have never explained their actions or how it was a "legitimate aim", they stopped representing me, citing an agreed reasonable adjustment as the cause. I believe that these were unlawful retaliatory actions for having complained about DD.
    I am unrepresented, do not have any ATE and dealing with the other sides solicitors, after my solicitor failed to respond to court papers in February 2023.
    I am under time constraints to supply them with information that the solicitor failed to send! 
    Case 3. Claim Not Filed.
    My solicitor has abandoned the two above cases, which he filed. 
    He cites the same reasons, that previous solicitors have abandoned claims for. He accepted my request for reasonable adjustments, then ignored them.
    The solicitor has also acted negligently, and never provided reasonable care, skill or competence. He has not advised me properly, ignored requests to supply information, or advice, despite requesting a SAR and a subsequent complaint to the ICO. The solicitor failed to respond to the other side. 
    He failed to seek expert reports. 
    The solicitor has claimed that he does not believe my actions are a direct result of my disabilty, this is despite sending a letter in May stating I had a case, and having been sent numerous reports regarding my anger outbursts.
    Unfortunately, this solicitor has been disingenuous with his responses to complaints, I have evidence to suggest he has not been honest in his responses. 
  • over 1 year ago in reply to 67justdiagnosed

    yes my understanding is causation in section 15 is 'but for' causation. so breaking down section 15(1)(a) the conditions are:

    • B is disabled (autistic)
    • A treats B unfavourably (by refusing services for instance)
    • A does this because of some factor X (for example some one loosing their temper as in your example)
    • X would not be the case if B was not disabled (autistic)

    So disability (autism) doesn't have to be the direct cause or only cause of X. It's enough that but for autism X wouldn't have arisen. That's my understanding of 15(1)(a) and i think that's what you are referring to?

    However the test in 15(1)(b) can't be ignored. Unless a defendant is really stupid they will generally try in any lawsuit to appeal to section 15(1)(b) as a defence. The bit where it says "It will be discrimination arising from disability if the employer cannot objectively justify the decision to discipline the worker." thats a reference to section 15(1)(b). This guy explains it well (https://www.stammeringlaw.org.uk/disability-equality-law/discrimination/discrimination-arising-from-disability/justification/).

    Again I can't tell you how 15(1)(b) might apply in your case. But you certainly need to consider what arguments the defence might use to try and invoke 15(1)(b) as a defence.

Reply
  • over 1 year ago in reply to 67justdiagnosed

    yes my understanding is causation in section 15 is 'but for' causation. so breaking down section 15(1)(a) the conditions are:

    • B is disabled (autistic)
    • A treats B unfavourably (by refusing services for instance)
    • A does this because of some factor X (for example some one loosing their temper as in your example)
    • X would not be the case if B was not disabled (autistic)

    So disability (autism) doesn't have to be the direct cause or only cause of X. It's enough that but for autism X wouldn't have arisen. That's my understanding of 15(1)(a) and i think that's what you are referring to?

    However the test in 15(1)(b) can't be ignored. Unless a defendant is really stupid they will generally try in any lawsuit to appeal to section 15(1)(b) as a defence. The bit where it says "It will be discrimination arising from disability if the employer cannot objectively justify the decision to discipline the worker." thats a reference to section 15(1)(b). This guy explains it well (https://www.stammeringlaw.org.uk/disability-equality-law/discrimination/discrimination-arising-from-disability/justification/).

    Again I can't tell you how 15(1)(b) might apply in your case. But you certainly need to consider what arguments the defence might use to try and invoke 15(1)(b) as a defence.

Children
No Data