Act on disability or pay the penalty
Lethargy is an infectious condition; inertia breeds more of the same. It's a vicious circle, one that becomes difficult to break. Over the past month, following the attacks on the World Trade Center, many people will have witnessed more of this than ever before. Lives have been turned upside down, the usual comfort found in routine has been abandoned by many.
The message is clear: faced with the enormity of recent happenings, the minutiae of life seem unimportant.
For businesses, it's a similar story. It's easy to see how bosses can fall into a relentless cycle of lethargy at a time when the bigger picture is all-prevailing. But these same people still have a commitment to their staff and to their existing and future customers. They have businesses to run, businesses that are dominated by bureaucracy, rules and deadlines.
One deadline that is not going to go away is the final one for the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), which will be enforced in October 2004, making it unlawful for employers and service providers to treat disabled people, whether employees or guests, less favourably than others.
As with many pieces of legislation, the language that the DDA is wrapped up in makes it difficult to interpret. For a start, disability is a wide-ranging term. It does not just apply to people in wheelchairs, who, although the most widely recognised sector of the disabled community, represent only a small percentage of its total. The term "disability" can apply equally to someone with a speech impediment such as a stammer, or to those who suffer from progressive illnesses such as HIV or cancer.
A further nebulous area is the requirement by the DDA for firms to make "reasonable adjustments" in their treatment of both employees and guests, a phrase that is clearly open to interpretation.
Clarification of some of the terms of a piece of legislation that was first introduced six years ago would be a good start. Specific examples of what constitutes disability and "reasonable adjustments" would be welcomed by employers, many of whom are likely to embrace the spirit of the Act but are worried about the financial impact of compliance on their businesses.
In the meantime, good employers with sound employment practices may not need to go as far as they might imagine to stay within the law. Much of the Act comes down to common sense, such as having a written policy on how to respond to disability discrimination laws, and regular training of staff to ensure that both colleagues and guests with special needs are treated with respect and humanity.
A reasonable adjustment might, for example, not mean translating a daily changing menu into braille, but training staff to read menus to blind people and indicating where on the plate different food items are located. Employers who are uncertain as to whether they have gone far enough could try working with local disabled groups, asking them to act as mystery shoppers from both employee and guest perspectives.
As with any piece of legislation, it's impossible to be certain of being 100% within the law until that law is put to the test. But it is possible to continually try out and question procedures in the same manner as demonstrating due diligence for food safety.
Despite the current lethargic climate, disability discrimination is an important issue that is not going to go away. The price of giving in to that lethargy and doing nothing could be a high one.
Jenny Webster, Deputy Editor,Caterer & Hotelkeeper
