The Disability Rights Commission in the UK - Coursework Example

Download file to see previous pages Disabled people are deprived of better employment opportunities because they are inadequately qualified and unskilled in comparison to non–disabled people. The statistics show that the number of unemployed disabled people is twice that of non–disabled people. Disabled people had to countenance several problems while availing themselves of transportation facilities and accessing places like office buildings, bus – stations, the underground railway system, restaurants, etc. The reason is that the available transport facilities and the structural design of buildings and other structures were not conducive to the welfare of disabled people. These are some of the factors that create difficulties for and increase the problems faced by disabled people in making use of the existing systems at their workplaces and in commuting to their place of work from their residence (Walsh, Stephens, & Stephen, 2000).

Despite the stringent antidiscrimination measures enacted through the Disability Discrimination Act, there are several instances where employers failed to adhere to the provisions of the act. The following cases illustrate some of these instances, in Vernon v Roper, the golf club had disallowed the appellant to utilize the facility of a motorized golf cart. It was held by the Court that the golf club was in breach of its legitimate duty to arrange alternative methods for the appellant which would have facilitated him to avail himself of the services of the club. Moreover, the Court held that if the club had made arrangements for the claimant to use his golf buggy, then such an act would have constituted the making of alternative adjustments (Vernon Roper v Singing Hills Golf Course Limited).

The appellant in Glover’s case was a blind diabetic man who used a specially trained dog to find the way and help him. He went to a restaurant to have a sandwich to maintain his blood sugar level. However, the staff of the restaurant obstructed his entry into the restaurant on the plea that there was not enough room to accommodate his dog inside the restaurant. The Court considered the acts of the restaurant staff as discriminatory against the appellant and awarded damages to him (Glover v Hannah's Cafe).
The appellant in Kirton’s case was a patient suffering from cancer of prostate. ...Download file to see next pages Read More