Posted By Wilf Archer Try this link to Disability discrimination act. http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/1995050.htm In short is her disabiltiy long or short term.? if long term or permanent then the employer should provide for her reasonable adjustments. I would reckon a chair and a suitable writing surface is not unreasonable. Wilf. Extract from the act. Long-term effects 2. - (1) The effect of an impairment is a long-term effect if- (a) it has lasted at least 12 months; (b) the period for which it lasts is likely to be at least 12 months; or (c) it is likely to last for the rest of the life of the person affected. (2) Where an impairment ceases to have a substantial adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, it is to be treated as continuing to have that effect if that effect is likely to recur. (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), the likelihood of an effect recurring shall be disregarded in prescribed circumstances. Normal day-to-day activities 4. - (1) An impairment is to be taken to affect the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal day-to-day activities only if it affects one of the following- (a) mobility; (b) manual dexterity; (c) physical co-ordination; (d) continence; (e) ability to lift, carry or otherwise move everyday objects; (f) speech, hearing or eyesight; (g) memory or ability to concentrate, learn or understand; or (h) perception of the risk of physical danger. (2) Regulations may prescribe- (a) circumstances in which an impairment which does not have an effect falling within sub-paragraph (1) is to be taken to affect the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal day-to-day activities; (b) circumstances in which an impairment which has an effect falling within sub-paragraph (1) is to be taken not to affect the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

Posted By Hilary Charlton I have found out that the employer is Social Services so they really are trying it on somewhat! I don't think that "not being able to afford it" will wash on this occasion.

Posted By Kieran J Duignan Hilary The matter of Access to Work funding (subsidy) was explicitly addressed by a JobCentre Plus Officer at the London Metropolitan IOSH branch seminar on disability, health and safety in January. She indicated that the criteria of funding are relatively generous, above a threshold of £300, which the employer has to fund. And she emphasised that an application should come from an employee. As a safety ergonomist, I have conducted assessments under the AtoW scheme and endeavoured to ensure that an optimal rather than a minimal solution; that means that, for example, I would specific voice-operated software if the evidence indicated that was required. The off-beat note in your question concerns the tone attributed to the employer. There is no doubt about the employer's liability to both safeguard the physical (and psychological) integrity of their employee and to make appropriate reasonable adjustments for an employee with a disability. The Legal Officer of the DDA who addressed the IOSH meeting made no bones about how determined - and capable - she is to ensure that employers no longer shrug off their responsibilities to employees. The bottom line is that it is far, far most cost-effective of the employer to provide appropriate support than to allow to matter to become a DDA issue.

Posted By Andy Essex I work for Jobcentre Plus as a H&S Policy Adviser. Not having the money to fund equipment required for reasonable adjustment is no defence in law for the employer. However, Access to Work schemes run by Jobcentre Plus make generous contributions to the funding of equipment. The employer needs to contact the local Access to Work team and arrange for the employee to see a specialist to determine just what is required. When the equipment has been decided upon the funding issue will be taken care of. If the employer takes no action to get things moving I would suggest the employee considers going to an Employment Tribunal.

Posted By Kieran J Duignan Geoff An 'implied' threat is Your PERSONAL interpretation. I for one offered a comment in response to an enquiry that expressed an employer's disregard for employee rights. My comment was far from confrontational and simply threw light on boundaries. If you interpret that as confrontational, that's your own mindset, not mine. And that is simply by way of constructive feedback, my dear fellow, intended to encourage you to show greater awareness of your own subjective interpretations.

Posted By Geoff Burt Yes, that' my understanding also Jack, the employee applies. Which is possibly how the question arose ie the employee was asked to contact them.

Posted By Ken Taylor Just one more thought in addition to supporting the advice already given - Should DSE users be sitting on chairs for 'long hours'? Surely this is against the guidance for frequent breaks away from the screen?