After more than 5 years in the making, the much anticipated Equality Act 2010 came into force on the 1 October 2010.
One of the most talked about changes, which was not in the original draft of the Act but was introduced following pressure during consultation, is the ban on the use of pre-employment health questionnaires except in very limited circumstances.
Q. So what does the Act actually say about pre-employment health questionnaires?
A. In a nutshell, a company who receives an application for work can not ask about the health of the applicant before work is actually offered, unless specific criteria are met.
Q. Why does the Act ban pre-employment health questionnaires?
A. To eliminate the potential for discrimination at the application stage where it was felt that all too often unjust assessments were made based on disclosed medical conditions (especially mental health conditions) that unfairly prevented suitable applicants progressing to interview. The Act also aims to encourage those with health conditions to apply for jobs (whereas they may have previously been put off from doing so by pre-employment health questionnaires).
Q. Can pre-employment health questions be asked at all?
A. Yes, but only in limited circumstances. The questions must be asked with a view to establishing whether the applicant will be able to carry out a function that is intrinsic to the work concerned.
The explanatory notes to the Act give the example of an applicant who applies for a job in a warehouse that requires manual lifting and handling of heavy items. As manual handling is a function which is intrinsic to the job, the employer may ask the applicant questions about their health to establish whether they are able to do the job (with reasonable adjustments for a disabled applicant, if required). The employer would not be permitted to ask the applicant other health questions until they were offered the job.
It will also be possible to ask an applicant has a disability that would require reasonable adjustments to be made to the recruitment process. The example given by the explanatory notes is of an applicant who discloses a speech impairment and asks for the adjustment of more time being allowed for the interview.
Q. How should pre-employment questions be phrased under the Act?
A. Unfortunately this is still not clear and the explanatory notes are of little help. Using the example from the explanatory notes, suggested approaches vary from the narrow approach of asking a specific question (e.g. "Do you have a medical condition that will prevent you from lifting heavy objects?") to a much wider approach of sending an applicant a long list of medical conditions that might prevent heavy lifting. Given the uncertainty, employers should take a cautious approach by reviewing the core duties of the job on offer and focusing the questions accordingly.
Once again, the government has left a possibly contentious issue to be decided by case law.
Q. What are the risks if inappropriate pre-employment health questions are asked?
A. If inappropriate questions are asked (i.e. questions about an applicant's health that are not permitted by the Act) and an unsuccessful applicant brings a direct disability discrimination the onus will be on the employer to show that no discrimination took place. The Equality & Human Rights Commission may also investigate if inappropriate questions are being asked and take enforcement action.
Q. What do I do if I offer a job but a subsequent condition is revealed that means the candidate is unable to perform the job?
A. Once a job has been offered and accepted employers may, if they wish, ask additional medical questions (although care still needs to taken with how that information is used).
If a condition is revealed that causes the candidate problems in performing the job then reasonable adjustments must be considered. If there are no reasonable adjustments then the job offer may need to be withdrawn.
There is clearly scope for claims here and as such any adjustments must be very carefully considered. If none are viable the employer must have an objective business reason to withdraw the role.
The contents of this brochure are intended as guidelines for clients and other readers. It is not a substitute for considered advice on specific issues. Consequently, we cannot accept any responsibility for this information or for any errors or omissions.
Thomas Eggar LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales under registered number OC326278 whose registered office is at The Corn Exchange, Baffin's Lane, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1GE (VAT number 991259583). The word 'partner' refers to a member of the LLP, or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications. A list of the members of the LLP is displayed at the above address, together with a list of those non-members who are designated as partners. Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Lexcel and Investors in People accredited.
Thomas Eggar LLP is not authorised by the Financial Services Authority. However, we are included on the register maintained by the Financial Services Authority so that we can carry on insurance mediation activity which is broadly the advising on, selling and administering of insurance contracts. This part of our business, including arrangements for complaints and redress if something goes wrong, is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The register can be accessed via the Financial Services Authority website. We can also provide certain further limited investment services to clients if those services are incidental to the professional services we have been engaged to provide as solicitors.
Thesis Asset Management plc, our associated financial services company, provides a comprehensive range of investment services and advice. Thesis is owned by members of Thomas Eggar LLP but is independent of and separate to it. No lawyer connected with Thomas Eggar LLP provides services through Thesis as a practicing lawyer regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Thesis is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Thesis has its own framework of investor protection and professional indemnity cover but Thesis clients do not enjoy the statutory protection of solicitors' clients.