False (missing) information

James Fairchild
Member - 210 posts

David,

I can agree sympathise with much of what you say above, from the point of view of manager/owner who just wants to get the job done.

However ask yourself this: had the form been ticked in the disability section and CF details given, would that have made you think twice about employing this person?

If so, then that is precisely why he made the form look 'normal'.

As an aside, surely the form about disability/ethnic origin/etc should be entirely seperate from the application form, and the former not even get to the hiring line manager in order to form part of the hiring decision?

If the falsification of the application form was something material to the role (previous employment, qualifications, etc) then I would support your wish to go for a gross misconduct termination - however this is different, in my view.

David Mitchell
Member - 5 posts

Hello James, Very interesting, informative and accurate reply. I cannot argue on any of the points - of course consideration would have been given to any health issues, but thankfully we employ a disciplined points system when assessing candidates, hopefully making decisions on objective bases throughout. We're only a small business, but we try to do things as closely to the book as possible. Things like style, dress and personality can't help but influence the decision-making process, and I agree that if I were applying for a job for which I am more than capable, I would hate to be refused at the first stage because of something minor which doesn't fit "the mould". What aggrieved me was that non-declaration of a serious condition doesn't mean for anything, except another poke in the eye for employers. If insurers can refuse Critical Illness payouts through non-disclosure of, say, a migraine headache thirty-odd years prior to commencement of the policy with impunity, why shouldn't we be able to apply the same fundamentals to employment. If I engaged a welder, only to find that he suffers severe asthma attacks the moment he wore a welding mask, am I expected to make allowances, employ him elsewhere in the factory, or can I point him towards his application form, asking him to show me where he declared his condition? I dread to contemplate the outcome of such a scenario. It's fast approaching the stage where we shall need to ask just about everything possible within the realms of human rights, bordering on the downright nosey - except age, of course. Isn't it strange that we can ask if a job candidate has a criminal record, or a clean driving licence etc., but not their age ??

sheena farenden
Member - 52 posts

I am sorry David but yet again I feel I must stick up for someone with a disability. You are not looking at the whole picture here why should this employee be any different to any other employee just because he has a disdability it does not mean he is incapable of doing the job or that his sick record will be any worse than anyone else's. OK so you might have to allow a little more time for appointments etc. Yes Ok he could end up sick for a few weeks but so could anyone who works for you or you yourself.

As I always point out nobody knows what is around the corner health issues and accidents hit every family at sometime in this country and many disabled provide many years of active loyal and often better quality service to their employers.

Unfortunately this is exactly why DDA came about to protect people from being discriminated against because of their difference.

I hope that you use this opportunity to learn and appreciate the diversity of your employees and benefit from all they bring into the company wether disabled or not. I am afraid that if you do not that you will end up losing more than just money.

James Fairchild
Member - 210 posts

The issue Sheena (and I have a fair bit of sympathy with this position) is that many small businesses want to pay for a hard days work and no more. They do not understand (nor do I) why they have to take on such a pastoral responsibility for people aswell. Obviously this is why the HR profession and consultants exist (and why many of us are on this board!) but when the man comes round every week to clean my windows (and I pay him in cash) I do not (and should not) have to think should I pay him each when he's retired or wants a day off sick/how much compensation should I give him if I move house/don't want my windows doing for whatever reason, or if he gets wolf-whistled whilst climbing a ladder with his derriere on view.

You're right of course Sheena when you say that any of us could find ourselves in this situation, which is why the government has created the legislation it has; to protect people.

David, returning to your issue, I have a suggestion for the future, which is to put all people you are thinking of offering jobs to through an occupational health assessment. BUPA Wellness are known for this, as are other companies. That way, he would _have_ to mention this condition (potentially his reasons for lying could be probed by the nurse), and you would get the written opinion of a medical professional to back-up your decision. Couple of hundred quid? Better than £100k for disability discrimination.

I agree with you when you want to do something over this lying, but I'm not sure what the answer is - principally because his solicitor would say that it doesn't make a difference). Any solicitors reading this care to comment?

sheena farenden
Member - 52 posts

James I understand the managers and small business problems here as I have also worked like this and realise staff being missing can be a problem however the workers fought for many years to gain certain rights as employees. If they had not many of us would still be working in appalling conditions and living in squallor. Most small business owners would not be as they probably would not get the opportunity or money to start up.

David note for future reference even James's way could be fraught with danger if a disabled person can show evidence of being rejected on grounds of their disability they can still make a claim and win.

Basically you must only take into account wether the person has the right skills/knowledge etc. etc and not take into account Race, Religion, Gender, Disability, Sexuality, Age unless specific provisions apply in law.

Be honest how would you feel if I said I only employee women as Men cannot multi task or empathise it would be unfair and a generalisation and I would be discriminating against you because of your Gender

James Fairchild
Member - 210 posts

I'd like to think that if you used BUPA Wellness (or whoever) and then you had a DDA claim, that BUPA would owe the company a duty of care/ responsibility for information given in a professional capacity.

sheena farenden
Member - 52 posts

I agree that a good occupational health advisor is a must but remember they cannot advise you to sack a person because of a disability and in the end the action is taken against you not the health advisor.

Also note that all paperwork computer records must be produced to the employee if requested under Data Protection Act

Carole Simmons
Member - 45 posts

Personally as a disabled person myself, I find it repugnant that you are even having this conversation! Shame on you all. Wait till you are in our situation, have to suffer the discrimination and know full well that companies, big well known companies who should and do know better are bending over backwards to break the law every day. Which is why people are forced to hide their disability at times.
The DDA was brought in for a reason and your conversation has just repeated why it is still so necassary. Thank God.

James Fairchild
Member - 210 posts

Sheena,

My point was (supposed to be) that if an OHA had assessed this paperwork whilst carrying out a PRE employment medical, the discrepancy would have come to light then.

The issue of what would then happen if a company decided not to hire based on the advice of the OHA is an interesting one. I would suspect any claim would be a medical negligence claim against the OHA rather than an Employment claim against the company (as I believe the company would have a reasonable defence on the basis that they acted on information received in a professional capacity).

sheena farenden
Member - 52 posts

My point is that you cannot refuse someone a job on the grounds of discrimination there are more than a few precedents in race, religion and gender. Being discriminated as disabled would be no different.

James I understand that yes a case could be taken against an OHA. however I do not believe any reputable OHA would put themselves in this position. However the discrimination would still come from the employer so any ET would deal with them.

Carole sorry if I have upset you but I am also disabled and have found that when I criticise these managers with such outdated views it becomes to personal so I try to be less confrontational these days. I agree it is disgusting that we have to educate existing Managers and Employers as they are still treating their staff in such a discriminatory manner.

Helen C
Member - 15 posts

the employee was being dishonest on his application form, disabled or not. He did not declare true information at the interview. This is discrimination against the employer here, not the employee, who lied on their application form by declaring they were in good health, when clearly they were not. I am disabled myself and would not lie on application when it clearly states about false information . He lied and whatever he lied about is irelevant or is lying about ones health different to lying about, lets say, having a criminal record, claiming benefits while working, false CV? I could go on and on but I stick to the fact that lies were told on the application form. Why should the rules be any different for certain people, a liar is a liar in my books whatever their status.

Carole Simmons
Member - 45 posts

David - Let’s get back to the facts here, have you got references from previous employers? Was there anything in those which were thinly veiled or at all suspicious which might lead you to suspect anything given the limitations a previous employer has with Data protection but given the knowledge you now have, which might give an indication that this employee was a problem in the past. In short do you have any proof whatsoever that this employee’s past medical history has given any reason for concern to an employer.
If not is it not a fact that you have now reacted to a medical name without any proof that it is going to have any actual real detrimental effect on your new employee what so ever and as you say yourself "could" lay him low.
There are an awful lot of people who have things that "could" lay them low but might never happen and if every employer had to think long and hard about employing them because of that fact alone then no one with any disability of any kind would ever be employed because somebody would always come up with a reason why not! Hence the DDA.
Stop obsessing about what you can do about it - you are where you are. Give the person a chance, you just might be pleasantly surprised and it all turns out to be a storm in a tea cup - and may be change a few view points!

Anne McAllister
Member - 115 posts

Lots of companies/organisations now ask how many days you have had off in the last year but they should also say DDA absences excepted which seems a lot fairer.
Just because you have a recognised illness for the purposes of the Act does not mean you will necessarily take time off work.
If the absences are covered by the DDA you do not have to declare them.
Would this have solved the problem in the first case?

sheena farenden
Member - 52 posts

In one of my employers office we have an employee with a similar genetic issue he is covered under DDA however as far as I am aware apart from regular check ups since he had a heart lung transplant he has not had any specific time off sick for this condition.

Even if he had I would hope that any employer would be more sympathetic.

I do not believe if this person declared himself in good health he would be lying anymore than someone who occaissionally uses a pump for their Asthma but has not actually been off sick for a long time or someone who takes Statins for high cholesterol and has not had a heart attack . Be real.

If you dismiss this person on these grounds you will be discriminating if you had not taken them on because of their disability you would have been discriminating.

As I have stated before anyone can become disabled through accident or injury or unfortunately some genetic or environmental issue that today we are unaware of .

Anne McAllister
Member - 115 posts

Its a sad state of affairs.
I cant help feeling that in some ways staff are to blame for this fear that prospective employers have.
Its always the few that mess things up for the majority ie excessive time off, swinging sickies,etc.
The majority of workers are not like this but I have worked with a few in my time who give a bad impression.
Thankfully we have DDA to protect the innocent.

Carole Simmons
Member - 45 posts

As usual there is always two sides to that arguement too Anne. I have also known Employers who refuse to allow employees back to their roles after periods of sickness on the grounds that the role is no longer suitable and then argue and time waste for months because it costs them nothing over finding a reasonable alternative and making reasonable adjustments. The employee is left with no pay and on benifits and in very stressfull situations and obviously all the employer is after is the employee saying "Thats it I've had enough" and quit.
Yes thank heavens for the DDA but beleive you me, sadly SOME employers have become very good at finding ways to work it despite the public image they portray.

James Fairchild
Member - 210 posts

Anne, you state above "If the absences are covered by the DDA you do not have to declare them" - do you have a link / booklet that confirms that? It would be very useful in respect of another matter if you could share it with me.

Sheena - the job isn't being refused on the grounds of discrimination, the job is being refused on the grounds of lying on an application form. Whether this lie was about his previous job title, his home address, or his disability is (or at least, should be) irrelevant. I think we may have scared David off!

I'd like to think that noone on this site would knowingly discriminate on any of the grounds, however the purpose of the original question was (as I see it) managing a forgery issue, not going off on DDA-tangents. I see the purpose of this site as helping manage HR-related issues, which just occasionally would include things like making a proposed dismissal watertight. Whether the HR practitioner agrees with managements' decision to dismiss is irrelevant.

Anne McAllister
Member - 115 posts

Sorry james i dont have a link but I have seen itmon application forms from voluntary organisations mainly.
They dont state that if its not DDA absences you dont need to declare it but rather it reads.....details of absences in last year ( DDA absences excepted) which implies that they dont really want to know about them.

sheena farenden
Member - 52 posts

I am not sure where to find it either but my employer states the same that absences caused by disability cannot be used except when calculating sick pay but in respect of inefficiency or managing performance etc it cannot be counted.

Carole Simmons
Member - 45 posts

James - try http://www.equalityni.org/archive/word/WhatEmployees(R).doc

I think it covers just about all the points raised on this post.

Your right I think we have scared David off - shame!!

Daniel Sweeney
Member - 9 posts

Wasnt there some work carried out on behalf of the DRC that indicated that disabled staff tended to have less 'casual sickness' than non disabled staff? Is the employee in question currently in good health, and was he or she at the time of the application? If they were then no lie has been told. In relation to full disclosure and materiality, should we all not be including a statement to the effect that 'I'm prone to death sometime between now and 75'?
Enough of the shibboleths about disabled employees being a cost to an organisation.

David Mitchell
Member - 5 posts

Well, the thread has moved on a little and became slightly OT at times, but that's what forum postings do - they are a form of conversation after all, and I can just imagine how boring a dinner party with friends would be if there was only one topic of conversation all evening.

Far from being "scared off", Carole, I chose to let the topic run without any further input or response in order to gather the varied points of view, and see what developed. After all, I have no other choices in the matter, but it remained interesting to read other comments and views.

I agree entirely (voluntarily, and not because I have no legal right to do otherwise) that anyone who endures any form of disability (what a horrible word), no matter how slight, is entitled to work. My original posting was born of the frustration I felt that non-disclosure of a health issue could not be applied within the framework of employment law as a falsification within an application of employment. It was not, and probably wouldn't have been, a non-disclosure of a disability, as the employee doesn't appear to see his condition as such. I viewed the matter as being no different to an application which contained any other form of material shortcomings. In other words, untruths - and I emphasise: as a means to either gain employment, or as a means of avoiding refusal.

I subscribe to a well-know firm of Employment Law specialisst to whom I turn for all my HR and H&S advice. It costs a lot each month but I wouldn't make a move without them. It was they who advised me that, even though there was technically a failure of honesty, which in itself could form the basis for disciplinary action and possible dismissal for falsification, the subsequent disclosure of the health matter immediately made it a matter under the DDA.

I'm sorry, but it is matter of dishonesty. If an applicant feels that disclosure of a medical condition at interview stage may jeopardise their chances of employment, and therefore deliberately choose not to mention it, they are wilfully engaging in a cynical ploy to gain employment through dishonesty.

Also - and look out, here comes another can of vipers - doesn't that imply reduced faith that their abilities to carry out the job will more than override their disabilities?

This has strengthened my view that any disability, no matter how slight, must be declared at interview. If it is found that a more qualified, (disabled) candidate is ignored in favour of an able-bodied one, there will obviously be a case within the DDA - but not if the disability is revealed after the event - surely ???

I engage a formal "points system" during and after interview, to help with a non-subjective appraisal of candidates. It's not going to be infallible - but it offers some guidance for "close-run" situations.

I have to say that the employee in question is doing well in the position for which he was engaged, and although he needed a couple of days off sick this week, his attendance record - and his work ethic - is better than several others in my employ.

Finally. Several years ago I had a fresh requirement for a Production Welder. I interviewed a few candidates, including a weld-test, and showed each around the factory including their prospective working area. At the end of one of the interviews, having decided that a particular candidate was right for the job, I offered him the position. We agreed the pay, he was aware of the other T&C's, and I ended by saying that I would confirm with a formal offer letter. It was at that moment that he revealed to me that he had an artificial leg. I could leave it there and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions...............

I said that I didn't see that it made any difference , but would he need to be seated most of the day? - if so, we would need to procure the correct seating for him. He assured me that he had no special requirements. His employment with us was good - in fact he was able to bear his disability with good humour. The only occasion on which it was observed to be a problem was when he was attempting to thread a length of wire through the welding equipment. He was tugging at the end quite vigorously, but without success. It was then pointed out by a colleague that he was in fact standing on the free end with his false foot. Of course, he couldn't feel it. He derived as much amusement from the episode as his working colleagues.

He stayed with me for several years, until he decided to return to his former job as a care assistant at a local nursing home.

But why did he deliberately leave the revelation until after securing the employment?

Carole Simmons
Member - 45 posts

I'm so glad you were not David as your story about your Production Welder was interesting to say the least. It’s such a pity you were not remembering it before writing your original post as your final sentence says it all.

I am sure you were frustrated whilst writing your first post but I urge you to put yourself into the places of thousands of disabled people, mostly those with hidden disabilities who have tried on many occasions to do things the right way only to be knocked down with the prejudice that exists and find that the only way forward is to behave like your welder. Their frustrations are just as warranted which is why it is difficult to achieve a good balance at times.

I agree there is no excuse for dishonesty but I feel for the people who think that there is no other route open to them because of what has happened to them in the past at the hands of ill informed and unsympathetic individuals. It’s hard to change both their minds once they have been discriminated against and those of an employer who feels they have been ripped off. The DDA was supposed to deal with all of it but you realise it still has a lot of work to do.

Thanks for coming back.

Andrew Graham-Cumming
Member - 9 posts

Interesting

I am an occupational physician, and this issue of concealed past sickness is one with which I am very familiar. An obvious question is, why were you asking for a health declaration on an application form that was going to a manager and not in confidence to an occupational health adviser? That seems to me an inappropriate use of sensitive personal data since you, as a manager have no relevant competence to assess the significance of medical information.

Taking up some other points, there is no guarantee that an OH service would pick up an illness if the candidate chose to conceal it. The OH service does not provide a police function, but exists to advise on the impact of underlying medical conditions on fitness for work and a need for adjustment or support in the workplace. In this context, I would not expect the OH service to tell the employer that the man had CF, unless he wanted the serviced to do so. Indeed, a doctor who did tell would be in breach of both the Data Protection Act and the GMC's guidance on medical confidentiality. I would expect the OH service to identify any substantial health risk that might arise because of the specific nature of the employment, and if one was present to offer advice to the candidate and the employer on the advisability or otherwise of the intended employment.

There is most definitely an excuse for dishonesty in this case. The man has been asked to reveal information to somebody unqualified to make use of it. He could reasonably expect a declaration of his CF to result in discrimination, as is clear from several of the responses in this thread. I don't condone his concealment, but I understand it.

As a final thought, most pre-employment health questionnaires are completely worthless. The vast majority of people are perfectly capable, from a medical perspective, of doing whatever job they want to do. The question to ask is not 'have you a disease?' but 'have you any form of impairment or disability that might affect your ability to do this job, because we would like to help you if you do?' There are a few occupations requiring certain physical capabilities which need a medical assessment, but even there the old standards have been shown in many cases to be over restrictive - we have a few insulin-dependent diabetics driving police response vehicles, and stable epileptic firemen.

If you are an employer you would be far better off scrapping pre-employment health screening, introduce a system to identify those who need support in the workplace by using a positive questionnaire, and use the savings to improve the management of sickness absence through early intervention for such issues as psychosocial stressors and bullying.

Carole Simmons
Member - 45 posts

Wow! The fist bit of common sense I have heard all day!! What company do you work for because boy I would like to head in the same direction!!

Happy Easter to you.

sheena farenden
Member - 52 posts

Andrew

Really good to hear from a professional OH who can see from both e/e & e/r point of view. You have put across what I was trying to say in a much more understandable way.

I hope to hear more from you in other strands that could do with your insight.

David Mitchell
Member - 5 posts

Thank you Andrew.

There are a couple of points to which I'd like to respond. I am the Managing Director of my small company. It is a family business, and two other family members are also directors. I and my son carry out the interviews. There are no "managers" to whom the application forms are handed. Therefore, the information contained therein remains confidential. However, don't lose sight of the fact that working colleagues talk and gossip, and I will lay a pound to a pinch of snuff that within a couple of weeks of a new employee starting he/she will have disseminated details of their own situation without any form of help from me, and everyone will know the ins and outs of a duck's you-know-what.

One of my employees had always suffered occasional migraine attacks, and about a year ago started to experience severe bouts, and agreed to undergo some clinical trials following medical failures to find the root cause. We learnt (from the shop floor, where else?) that he had been prescribed some new medication which appeared to make him somewhat distant, at times a bit clumsy, and was manifesting a slower work-rate than usual.

To emphasise - the information came from others, not the employee himself.

I am obliged to exercise a duty of care and, considering that his job entailed the use of machinery, under the Health and Safety umbrella I asked if his job had been taken into account when the new medication had been prescribed.

I also contacted our HR consultants (who also look after our H&S management) about the matter. Their advice was that I should go through the long-winded process of seeking the employee's permission to contact his GP. A professionally prepared letter seeking permission was drafted for me. The employee agreed and signed the letter. Another professionally prepared letter addressed to the employee's GP was also drafted, simply requesting certain relevant information in bullet-point form. It requested nothing which attempted to breach GP/Patient confidentiality. Both letters were sent. Nothing extraodinary in that. Two months later I received a curt, almost rude, reply from the employee's GP, asking for £75.00. Apparently, that's quite cheap compared to some charges. However, when I received the GP's reply, it contained no responses whatsoever to the points as requested, and we gleaned absolutely nothing from it. It was a useless excercise. The GP had the cheek and affrontary to tell me that I ought to read up on employment law.

My outsourced HR professionals suggested that I made arrangements with the employee for an informal meeting with him and his wife, which they agreed to, and we all sat down over a cup of tea, and just let the conversation flow, allowing them to do most of the talking - mainly about the case history, the lastest tests and the kind of medication. We got more personal details about the case than any GP would have volunteered. They agreed that there was a risk of drowsiness, but it was possible to take the tablet of an evening, allowing any effects to be slept off overnight.

Since then, the employee hasn't had a single day off sick through migraine. Now then - is that because the medication works, or because we took the trouble to talk?

The point of that anecdote is to show that we do have perfectly acceptable and legitimate means at our disposal to ascertain an employee's full ability to carry out their normal duties without breaching any human rights or confidentiality on medical grounds. However, they're a fat lot of good if the medical profession won't play ball. We try to "do the right thing" by our employees, but are then stymied by an arrogant, self-opiniated GP. That's not the employee's fault, but it leaves us with a not-so-pleasant alternative perhaps of asking our own appointed GP to act on OH grounds.

I've never found that to be necessary, but when I make the right moves under professional guidance, I don't expect to be fobbed off.

By the way, the employee had suffered from migraine attacks for many years before he joined me - a fact which somehow miraculously escaped being mentioned on his application form.

That's three of my employees so far. Only eight to go.

When an employee is absent, for whatever reason, his colleagues suffer. They have to fill in - and a single absence can represent a large proportion of the team. Chronic illness, whether seriously debilitating or simply of "nuisance value" has to be investigated if we, as employers, are to carry out our duties and responsibilities. We are not helped by those in the medical profession who see themselves as above or beyond a similar duty to help.

I would bet that, if something happened which required contact with a GP who decided to volunteer certain information - which hadn't been declared from the outset, and to which we might answer "well, we didn't know", he/she may just say, "But you didn't ask"...........

By the way, Andrew, companies of similar size to my own don't have the resources to go in for "Health Screening". We have to take people at their word. That last sentence is the nub of my complaint. Employees can lie with impunity and we have no course of redress whatsoever. Larger organisations who employ such vast numbers of personnel probably include Health Screening measures because, statistically, they've been caught out too many times.

Your next to last paragraph opens with a sentence which strengthens my argument. ".........most pre-employment health questionnaires are completely worthless".

However, it doesn't give people carte blanche to lie.

Here are the "health questions" from my application form.

Are you in good general health? Yes No

If No please state medical condition.

Are you receiving any medical treatment? Yes No

If yes, please state what?

Do you have any form of disability? Yes No

If Yes please give details of how we can help you overcome these limitations.

Please list any absence from work in the past 12 months and state the reasons for them.

Guess which answers were given by the employee in question. If it were possible to scan the document and post it here, I'd do so. I think you can guess from my tone that I suspect that you wouldn't be surprised by the answers.


From my standpoint, I've said all that I can. If others wish to continue to contribute, there's no problem. It's not my forum. It's just that I need to get on with the business of running my business. Thank you for your contributions, may you all prosper. That's not arrogance, that's a genuine wish. To those who celebrate it, have a Happy Easter Weekend. David JM.

Andrew Graham-Cumming
Member - 9 posts

David

Your HR consultants advised you to write to the GP for occupational health advice. You didn't get any. Don't blame the GP for asking for a reasonable fee for spending his time replying to your letter. Blame your HR consultant for advising you to seek advice from somebody who does not have the necessary competences to give you the advice you need. If you want OH advice go to an OH specialist, not a GP. Would you ask your GP to repair a hernia or replace a hip joint? It is not the GP's role to 'play ball' with an employer. His duty of care in law is wholly to the patient. If you ask for information with the patient's consent, he can give it to you, but don't expect him to give you an opinion outside his field of competence. However, I agree with you that a GP should not criticise the employer or be rude - the GP has a one-sided view since his information usually comes solely from the patient. Incidentally, I also find it depressing that the HR consultant's initial advice was 'write to the GP' and not 'talk to the employee'.

I don't understand your point about managers and directors. You are 'management', and you do not have the necessary knowledge to interpret the answers to the questions you ask candidates. What is the point in asking somebody to state what medical condition they have and what medication they are taking? What will you do with that information?

The questions in themselves are pointless. It is entirely possible that somebody with a long-standing medical condition could consider him/herself to be in good general health, and might not be receiving any medical treatment at the time of completing the questionnaire. For example, a manic depressive or schizophrenic in remission, a diabetic controlled by diet alone, somebody with cystic fibrosis who is free of significant symptoms at present. Indeed, your original complaint may be wholly unjustified, because he could have completed the form as you say he did without lying.

You have been sent by your HR consultant down a route with a substantial cost in your time, anger and blood pressure. I suggest that the learning point is not that people can lie on pre-employment questionnaires, but that employers should seek advice from those most competent to provide it.

NEIL HALLIWELL
Member - 1 post

The honesty angle works both ways. Which employers would admit that they would have not have employed this man if he had disclosed his disability?
The truth is he would not have had an interview and this would be justified in many different ways.
The adverse reaction of others to his disability as forced this 'dishonest' reaction, in order to allow him what most of us take for granted the right to work.
Which ones of us would not take the same action in the same circumstances