Can you discriminate if an impairment is "not likely to recur"?

Nigel DuPree
Member - 112 posts

'not cleared fit for work' seams a key phrase when employment offered conditional upon being 'cleared fit for work' so, unless two statements directly related to one another and health reporter stated 'not mentally fit' or had a crystal ball and suggested 'was not going to be fit' in the future - not enough information.

So, was 'fitness to work' based on current fitness or whether the applicant, like any other, would be ill or injured in the future ? Or was it a risk assessment of 'when' rather than 'if' and in order to mitigate risk applicant declaired unfit.

I thought DDA defines disability as any condition lasting up to a year or more as many conditions also may present with quite long periods of "remission" yet nevertheless, can be disabling in terms of performance should there be a 'relapse'.

If condition considered 'temporary' under DDA and 'likely' or not 'likely to recur' yet still used as the reason to define unfit this still smacks of discrimination or was employer using fitness test to get out of the problem of not wanting to say NO in the first placein case it backfired on them ?

Temporary "Impairment" could apply to anyone who has a seriously bad hair day, broken their glasses on the way to work or like 58% of display screen users experience Screen Fatigue (HSE 2007 rr561) except the temporary impairments associated with screen fatigue regularly ocure with prolonged use and without mitigation for as long as employment lasts.

Perhaps 'fitness to work' is going to have to be better defined than the test for incapacity benefit 'can you walk up a flight of steps and pick up a pencil' today !

Misfeasance and knit-picking could be a bigger threat to well-being than asbestos over the next thirty years unless people start stepping up to the plate and take their wellness, functionality or fitness to perform seriously.

Not reporting a problem may not only affect your employment rights but you will be found neglegent in any claim following a breakdown in communications leading to reliance on a legal action.