Mental health policy and practice across Europe: an overview

46 Mental health policy and practice
Box 3.1
A personal testimonial of work discrimination
Mr Watkiss writes (speech to Mind Conference 2001):
I received a curt letter from the personnel director stating that ‘my
standard of health did not measure up to the job, and therefore the offer
was being withdrawn’. A more intelligent, sober and kindly reaction
would have been to enquire a little further: perhaps to have contacted me
to find out more about this illness that the one sentence in the medical
report revealed. To have contacted, perhaps, my doctor or psychiatrist or
my then employer to find out a little more, and having done all this, then
make a decision.
My argument was that its [the company] action had been contrary to
the requirements of the DDA – which say that it is illegal to treat, in this
case a candidate for interview, less favourably than another solely on the
grounds of disability. I argued that its reaction was based on ignorance
and prejudice and was discriminatory. I applied for damages on the basis
of loss of earnings and injury to feelings. And I won!
My solicitor described it as a landmark decision . . . I hope it will mean
that more people with mental illness apply for work and are successful in
getting it . . . I would like to think that my case took a swipe at social
prejudice as well as questioning the equation that mental illness equals
incapacity.
officer, for someone with a history of depression) will be ‘too stressful’. Often
such risk assessments are based on stereotypes, not on a genuinely individual
assessment of whether the person can do the particular job, with adjustments
(for example, extra support) if needed, as required by the DDA.
The British DRC has analysed the case law and recommended specific legal
reform to government, including changes to the list of ‘day-to-day activities’
(Disability Rights Commission 2003). Evidence indicates that discrimination
frequently occurs on the basis of unnecessary questions during recruitment
such as ‘have you ever experienced mental illness?’. Therefore, the DRC
proposes that questions about disability should only be permitted during
recruitment (before job offer) in highly specified circumstances. In 2005
the United Kingdom government did make it easier for people with mental
health problems to secure their rights by removing the requirement that
people with mental health problems – but not other types of disability – had to
show their condition was ‘clinically well recognized’. Since 2004 direct discrimination
can no longer be justified, which should prove helpful to litigants
in future.
By the end of 2003, under the EU Directive on Employment, Article 13, countries
(and new EU countries prior to membership) had to have passed legislation
debarring employment discrimination on grounds including disability; and
to set up institutions to ensure enforcement. Research conducted for the EU
suggests that by 2003 there were 21 institutions in 15 countries devoted to
enforcing anti-discrimination provisions, with some countries having more