Some of the papers carry the story today of Edward Johnson, whose nuerofibromatosis means his face is covered in small harmless tumours. He has apparently been to over 80 job interviews and been rejected, he believes on the grounds that his disfigurement makes employers uncomfortable.
Employers should always remember that severe disfigurements are taken to fall within the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, notwithstanding that they might not meet its other requirements. Employers would therefore directly discriminate contrary to the law if they chose not to hire Mr Johnson because of the way he looks.
Mr Johnson’s condition would appear to have no other effect than cosmetic – compare it with the case of Cosgrove v Northern Ireland Ambulance Service [2006] NICA 44 where Cosgrove, on being declared unsuitable for his role as an ambulance technician due to his psoriasis, claimed he was entitled to treat the disfiguring effects of the condition as bringing it within the DDA. This was rejected – it is the disfigurement which is the disability, not the condition that causes it. There must thus, it seems, be a causal link between the disfigurement and the adverse treatment by the employer – which is abundantly present in Mr Johnson’s attempts to find a job.
Pingback: And so Osborne, recession and the share slide go on… « Insitelaw magazine