Employers must make reasonable adjustments when applying a provision, standard or practice that puts a person with a disability at a particular disadvantage. This obligation only applies if the employer knows, or could reasonably be expected to know, that the employee or applicant has a disability and may be put at a related disadvantage. . In Glasson v Insolvency Authority, the UK EAT held that an employee who stuttered was placed at a disadvantage during the interview process, but the employer had no knowledge of that disadvantage, so the duty to make reasonable adjustments did not apply. handed down the verdict.
what happened
Mr. Glasson was an employee of the Bankruptcy Bureau for many years and achieved excellent results. He had a stutter, which was a disability under the Equality Act. He applied for promotion in 2020. The interview was conducted via video conference due to pandemic-related restrictions on in-person meetings. Before the interview, he stated that he might need more time to answer questions because of his stutter, but did not ask for any other adjustments.
Mr. Glasson passed the interview, but another candidate performed better and was offered the role. Mr. Glasson claimed that his employer failed to make reasonable adjustments for his disability. Due to his stutter, he was unable to concentrate and answer questions during the interview, which affected his score.
The court acknowledged that a live interview via video conference was particularly detrimental to Mr. Glasson because of his stutter. However, because the employer did not know about the disadvantage and could not reasonably be expected to know, there was no duty to make reasonable adjustments. Glasson, who previously participated in a videoconference interview, said he had not raised any concerns about the process beforehand or asked for any adjustments other than extra time. The court also held that discrimination arising from a disability claim failed because the interview process was objectively legitimate.
On appeal, the EAT upheld the tribunal's decision. There was a correlation between Mr. Glasson's performance in the interview and his general performance on the job. His answers to questions were quite competent, even if not as fulfilling as expected. This meant that no amount of disadvantage was sufficient to make the interviewer aware that the way he answered the questions was influenced by his disability.
next step
Although the employer was aware of Mr. Glasson's disability, it had no practical or constructive knowledge that the interview process would place him at such a disadvantage. It was definitely beneficial for the employer to not pay attention to the disadvantages other than requesting extra time to answer questions.
The position might have been different had Mr. Glasson clearly been unable to adequately answer the questions that day. In that case, the interviewer was expected to further investigate whether his disability affected his ability to perform at the interview and, if so, take reasonable steps to avoid detriment. Maybe.
[View source.]