Mentally disabled people, such as clinically depressed people, have had difficulties in access to employment and higher education. Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) (1995) has been in force since 2 December 1996, completing the fifth year of its implementation on 2 December 2001 and its stated purpose has included ending of discrimination in access to employment by disabled people among others. The introduction of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA) (2001) as well as the Disability Discrimination (Amendment) Bill (DDAB) (2002) has revived the debate on the effectiveness of the DDA in increasing access to employment by disabled people but particularly by mentally disabled people. The paper therefore reviews the law and practice on the employment of clinically depressed people. It is argued that the devised rules on the discrimination tests have not succeeded in ending discrimination against disabled people in access to employment. It is further noted that since the SENDA uses the similar tests as the DDA, it would fail to end discrimination against disabled students in access to higher education.
References
1.
Abbey National PLC v. Sampson (2001) Employment Appeal Tribunal, EAT/484/99, Judgement, 12 January 2001.
2.
Agnew v. Chesterfield Borough Council (1999) Employment Appeal Tribunal, Case no. Eat/1342/98, Eat/1343/98, Judgement, 3 March 1999.
3.
Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) Public Law 101–336, United States Code 42 sections 12101 et. seq.
4.
Anyanwu v. South Bank University (2001) House of Lords, UKHL/14, All England Law Reports, 2, pp. 353, hearing, 26, 27 February, 22 March 2001; judgement, 22 March 2001.
5.
BaldwinM.JohnsonW. G. (1994) Labor-market discrimination against men with disabilities, Journal of Human Resources29 (1) pp. 1–19.
6.
Baynton v. Saurus General Engineers Ltd. (1999) Employment Appeal Tribunal, Judgement, 14 July 1999, Industrial Relations Law Reports, pp. 604.
7.
BirkettD. (2000) Count me in: A shop, restaurant or cinema cannot legally refuse entry to a disabled person. But a school can. Dea Birkett examines the implications of a new bill which looks set to open the school gates to all, the Guardian, 12 December 2000.
8.
Callagan (also as Callaghan) v. Glasgow City Council (2001) Employment Appeal Tribunal, Case no EAT/43/01, hearing, judgement, 28 August 2001, Industrial Relations Law Reports, pp. 724.
9.
ChadwickA. (1996), Knowledge, power and Disability Discrimination Bill, Disability and Society11 (1), pp. 25–40.
10.
Clark v. TDG Ltd. (tla Novacold) (1999) Court of Appeal, Judgement, 25 March 1999, Industrial Relations Law Reports, pp. 318.
11.
CorlettS. (2001) Keynote speech, a Paper presented at the TechDis Conference: Disability and Technology: Rights and Implications, London, 11 May 2001.
12.
Cosgrove v. Messrs Caesar and Howie (2001) Employment Appeal Tribunal, Appeal No. EAT/1432/00, Tribunal hearing 17 May 2001, Industrial Relations Law Reports, pp. 653.
13.
CrowtherN. (2002) Keynote Speech, A paper presented at the NUS Students with Disabilities Conference,Blackpool, 11 February 2002.
14.
Department for Education and Employment (1996) Code of Practice for Elimination of Discrimination in the Field of Employment Against Disabled Person or Persons who had a Disability (London, Department for Education and Employment).
15.
Department for Education and Employment (1999) From Exclusion to Inclusion: A Report of the Disability Rights Task Force on Civil Rights for Disabled People, (London, Department for Education and Employment).
16.
Department for Education and Skills (2001) Towards Inclusion: Civil Rights for Disabled People, (London, Department for Education and Skills).
17.
Department of Trade and Industry (2001) Towards Equality and Diversity: Implementing the Employment and Race Directives: Consultation Document (London, Department of Trade and Industry).
18.
Disability Discrimination (Amendment) Bill (2002a), HL Bill 40, 8 January 2002 (London, Stationery Office Ltd.).
19.
Disability Discrimination (Amendment) Bill (2002b) HL Bill 40, Second Reading, House of Lords, 23 January 2002, Lords Hansard, Volume No. 630 Part No. 79, Columns 1531–1564, (London, Stationery Office Ltd.).
20.
Disability Discrimination Act (1992) (Canberra, Australia: Government Printing Office).
DoyleB.(1997) Enabling legislation or dissembling law? The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Modern Law Review60(1), pp. 64–78.
23.
DuckettP. S.PrattR. (2001) The researched opinions on research: visually impaired people and visual impairment research, Disability and Society, 16(6), pp. 815–836.
24.
Edwards v. Mid Suffolk District Council (2001) Employment Appeal Tribunal, hearing, judgement, 11 January 2001, Industrial Relations Law Reports, 30(4), pp. 190–197.
25.
General Medical Council v. Cox (2002) Employment Appeal Tribunal, EAT/76/01, Judgement, 22 March 2002.
26.
GoodingC.(2000) Disability Discrimination Act: from statute to practice, Critical Social Policy20(4), pp. 533–549.
27.
GoodrumA. A.McCainK. W.LawrenceS.Lee GilesC. (2001) Scholarly publishing in the Internet age: a citation analysis of computer science literature, Information Processing and Management37(5), pp. 661–675.
28.
Greig v. Fife Council (2001) Enzployment Appeal Tribunal, hearing, 29 November 2001.
29.
GrundyE.AhlburgD.AliM.BreezeE.SloggettA. (1999) Disability in Great Britain: Results from the 1996/97 disability follow-up to the family resources, Survey Research Report — Department of Social Security Issue 94.
30.
H J Heinz Co. Ltd. v. Kenrick (2000), Employment Appeal Tribunal, hearing, judgement, 3 December 1999, Industrial Relations Law Reports, pp. 144.
31.
HamiltonJ.(2000) ‘Disability’ and ‘discrimination’ in the context of disability discrimination legislation: the UK and Australian Acts compared, International Journal of Discrimination and the Law, 4 pp. 203–245.
32.
Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council v. Farnsworth (1999) Employment Appeal Tribunal,Case no. EAT/461/99, judgement, 30 June 1999.
33.
Higher Education Statistics Agency (2000) Students in Universities: 1998/1999: Reference Volume, (Cheltenham, Higher Education Statistics Agency).
34.
JacksonC. J.FurnhamA.WillenK.(2000) Employer willingness to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act regarding staff selection in the UK, Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology73, pp. 119–129.
35.
Johnson and Johnson Medical Ltd. v. Filmer (2001) Employment Appeal Tribunal, EAT/I 087/00, hearing, judgement, 5 October 2001.
36.
Joint Information Systems Committee (2001) Disability, Technology and Legislation: New Pressures and New Opportunities for Further and Higher Education Institutions and Staff, Senior Management Briefing Paper 15 (Bristol, Joint Information Systems Committee).
37.
Jones v. 3M Healthcare Ltd. (2001) Employment Appeal Tribunal, Judgement, 11 December 2001.
38.
Jones v. Post Office (2001) Court of Appeal, EWCA Civ 558, hearing, judgement, 11 April 2001, Industrial Relations Law Reports, pp. 384.
39.
KonurO. (2000) Creating enforceable civil rights for disabled students in higher education: An institutional theory perspective, Disability and Society, 15(7), pp. 1041–1063.
40.
KonurO. (2001a) Disabled Students in Nursing Education: New Rules of the Game, (London, City University).
41.
KonurO. (2001b) Participation of visually disabled students in further and higher education: current public policy issues, Paper presented at the ABAPSTAS Annual Conference 2001, University of Manchester, Manchester, 31 August 2001–2 September 2001.
42.
KonurO. (2001c) Transition from further education to higher education for disabled students: current public policy issues, Paper presented at the Widening Participation in Higher Education for Disabled Students Summer Conference — Training for Excellence, Hereward College of Further Education, Coventry, 21 June 2001.
43.
KonurO. (2001d) Assessment of Disabled Students in Higher Education: Current public Policy Issues, (London, City University).
44.
KonurO. (2001e) Law of Students' Unions: A Review, (London, City University).
45.
KonurO. (2001f) The Governance of Students' Unions: Institutions Matter, (London, City University).
46.
KonurO. (2001g) The Participation of Disabled Students in Nursing Schools: Current Public Policy Issues (London, City University).
47.
KonurO. (2001h) Experience with Higher Education Equal Opportunities Network Newsletter regarding submission of a brief news article on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill (2000) on 1 March 2001 and 15 March 2001, 18 September 2001, (London, City University).
48.
KonurO. (2001i) Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (2001) Annotated,Part 2 Discrimination in Education, Version 2, 12 June 2001 (London, City University).
49.
KonurO. (2002) Research Brief on the Access to Professional Education and Training by Disabled Students following the General Medical Council Case,7 May 2002, Version 1, 8,000 words, (London, City University
50.
KonurO. (2002a) Disability Discrimination (Amendment) Bill (HL) Annotated,HL Bill 40, 8 January 2002, First Reading, House of Lords, Version 1, 13 January 2002, 25,000 words, (London, City University).
51.
KonurO. (2002b) Current public policy issues in access to employment by clinically depressed people, (London, City University).
52.
KonurO. (2002c) Access to nursing education by disabled students: Rights and duties of nursing programs, Nurse Education Today, 22(5), pp. 1–11.
53.
KonurO. (2002d) Assessment of disabled students in higher education: Current public policy issues, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(2), pp. 131–152.
54.
Leonard v. Southern Derbyshire Chamber of Commerce (2001), Employment Appeal Tribunal, Case no. EAT/789/99, hearing, judgement, 10 October 2000, Industrial Relations Law Reports, pp. 19–23.
55.
London Borough of Hammersnlith and Fulham v. Farnsworth (2000), Employment Appeal Tribunal, Case no. EAT/461/99, hearing, judgement, 15 June 2000, Industrial Relations Law Reports pp. 691.
56.
MacErleanN. (2001) The illness that dare not speak its name: Tribunals are awarding large sums to employees suffering from stress. Neasa MacErlean reports on the hidden disability, the Observer,14 October 2001, pp. 8.
57.
Mills v. London Borough of Hillingdon (2001) Employment Appeal Tribunal, EAT/0954/00, hearing, judgement, 18 October 2001.
58.
Morse v. Wiltshire County Council (1998) Employment Appeal Tribunal, Industrial Relations Law Reports, pp. 352.
59.
NorthD. C. (1991) Towards a theory of institutional change, Quarterly Review of Economics and Business31(1), pp. 3–11.
60.
O'Neill v. Symm & Co. Ltd. (1998) Employment Appeal Tribunal, hearing, judgement, 26 February 1998. Industrial Relations Law Reports pp. 233.
61.
OliverM. (1996) Understanding Disability: from Theory to Practice, (asingstoke, Macmillan).
62.
Pedus v. Chandler (2000) Employment Appeal Tribunal, case no. EAT/387/99, hearing, judgement, 26 May 2000.
Sex Discrimination Act (1975) Chapter 65, 12 November 1975, (London, Stationery Office Limited).
65.
Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (2001) Draft Code of Practice Post-16, (London, Stationery Office Limited).
66.
Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (2001), Chapter 10, 11 May 2001, (London, Stationery Office Limited).
67.
Stanger v. Nottinghanlshire County Council (1997), Employment Appeal Tribunal, Case no. Eat/910/97, judgement, 24 November 1997.
68.
Stronach v. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (2001) Court of Appeal, EWCA Civ 573, Hearing, judgement, 5 April 2001.
69.
ThomasA. (2000) Stability of Tringo's hierarchy of preference toward disability groups: 30 years later, Psychological Reports, 86 (3, part 2) pp. 1155–1156
70.
ThomasG. (1996) Disability Discrimination Act 1995, in:AndrewsS. et al. (Eds.), Current Law Statutes 1995, Volume 4, pp. 50–1: 50–118 (London, Sweet and Maxwell).
71.
TringoJ. L. (1970) The hierarchy of preference towards disability groups, Journal of Special Education, 4(3), pp. 295–305.
72.
UtleyA. (2001) Bill demands extra support for disabled, the Times Higher Education Supplement, 23 March 2001, No. 1479; pp. 6.
73.
WenbourneN. (1999) Disabled meanings: A comparison of the definitions of ‘disability’ in the British Disability Discrimination Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 23, pp. 149–172.
