Category: Recruitment

Categories
Disability Discrimination Law Diversity Employment Law Equality Act 2010 Lousha Reynolds Neurodiversity Recruitment

Thinking Differently: Why neurodiversity is a workplace superpower

Collaborative meeting in an office around a table

With it being Neurodiversity Celebration Week (16th–20th March), we felt that it was time to move beyond awareness and start talking more about action.

In the UK, it’s estimated that around 1 in 7 people are neurodivergent. This includes ADHD, Autism, Dyslexia, Dyspraxia, and Tourette’s, among others. For too long, recruitment processes and office environments have been designed around the “typical” brain. Often filtering out some of the most creative, analytical, and dedicated talent in the workforce.

From a British employment law perspective, supporting different ways of thinking is not only the right thing to do, but is also a legal requirement. To help business leaders and HR professionals, we’ve focused in on a few things to help better recognise and support neurodiversity at work.

Under the Equality Act 2010, many neurodivergent conditions meet the legal definition of a disability, where that condition has a substantial, adverse impact on the individual’s ability to carry out their normal daily activities. In such cases, this means that employees have a right to protection from discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.

Crucially, employers have a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments. This duty is “proactive,” meaning you shouldn’t wait for an employee to reach a breaking point before offering support. By fostering an environment where adjustments are normalised, you stay ahead of legal risks and, more importantly, help your team thrive.

2. Redefining “reasonable adjustments”

Support doesn’t always mean expensive equipment. Often, the most impactful changes cost nothing but a shift in mindset. Effective adjustments often include:

  • Environmental tweaks: Providing noise-cancelling headphones, adjustable lighting, or quiet zones for deep focus.
  • Communication shifts: Giving instructions in writing rather than just verbally or allowing for camera-off meetings to reduce sensory overload.
  • Flexibility: Allowing for flexible start and end times to avoid the sensory stress of peak-time commutes.

3. Rethinking recruitment

The traditional hour-long, face-to-face interview is often a test of social performance rather than job competency. To support different ways of thinking, we can look at:

  • Skills-based assessments: Letting candidates demonstrate what they can do rather than just what they can say.
  • Clear job descriptions: Removing jargon and fluff (like “must be a great multitasker”) if it isn’t essential to the role.

4. Moving from “culture fit” to “culture enhancement”

In corporate culture, we often talk about culture fit. However, this can inadvertently lead to mini-me hiring, where everyone thinks and acts the same way. 

To truly celebrate neurodiversity, we should look to add to our work culture. A neurodivergent employee might approach a problem from an angle no one else has considered. They might spot patterns others miss or bring a level of hyper-focus that drives a project to completion. Different ways of thinking are a competitive advantage.

How to get involved this Neurodiversity Celebration Week

This week is a fantastic opportunity to kickstart the conversation. You can:

  • Educate: Host a lunch-and-learn or share resources from the Neurodiversity Celebration Week website.
  • Listen: Create a safe space for employees to share their experiences (if they wish) and what support looks like for them.
  • Audit: Review your internal policies, from HR handbooks to your physical office layout, to see if they are inclusive of all brain types.

Neurodiversity isn’t something to be fixed or managed. It’s something to be celebrated. When we design a world that works for neurodivergent people, we inadvertently create a better, more flexible, and more productive workplace for everyone.

CONTACT US

We’re here to help with any questions or concerns you may have. Whether you need expert advice or would like an initial conversation about our services, pricing, or the options available, please don’t hesitate to get in touch. At Refreshing Law, what sets us apart from other law firms is that you’ll get to speak to an experienced employment lawyer right from the very first call.

02920 599 993

07737 055 584

lreynolds@refreshinglawltd.co.uk

GET IN TOUCH

Lousha Reynolds
Refreshing Law

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Employment Law Performance Management Recruitment Video

Video | Lesson learned

YouTube video playing on a phone

Our latest video is available to view on the Refreshing Law YouTube channel – please click here to watch the video where Anna discusses a recent case which caught Anna’s eye and involved a large amount of money being awarded. It seems to be a classic case of somebody being promoted out of their comfort zone, how they were managed and the lessons learned from the case. Anna discusses the importance of having a job description and clear expectations of what the employer expects the employee to be achieving.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

 

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Confidentiality Disclosure Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010 Recruitment Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 Right to Work

Reform to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

View of the British Houses of Parliament from the river Thames, where the Employment Rights Bill is being debated

On 28 October 2023, the 1974 legislation was amended by the Crime Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and accompanying Regulations.

In the past, some offenders were required to disclose their sentences for the rest of their lives. Now, custodial sentences of 4 years or less and of more than 4 years for some less serious crimes, will be spent “after a period of rehabilitation” of up to 7 years after the sentence has been served, provided that no further offence is committed in that period.

PenaltyPrevious Rehabilitation PeriodNew Rehabilitation Period
Community Order1 year beginning with the last day on which the order had effectNow it is the last day on which the order had effect
Custody of 6 months or less 2 years 
Custody up to 1 year 1 year
Custody of 6  months up to 30 months4 years 
Custody of more than 1 year up to 4 years 4 years
Custody of more than 30 months up to 4 years7 years 
Custodial sentences of more than four yearsNever spent7 years
Convictions for serious sexual, violent or terrorist offencesNever spentNever spent

Stricter disclosure rules continue to apply to jobs that involve working with vulnerable people.

The time frames that I have detailed are in relation to offenders who are over the age of 18. Slightly lower periods apply if the offender was under 18 at the time of conviction.

The new time periods are extended in the event of re-offending during the declaration period. A new conviction attracts its own disclosure period and the previous conviction and the new one need to be declared until the end of the original conviction’s active period or if later, the end of the new disclosure period applied to the more recent conviction.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

 

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Disability Discrimination Law Diversity Duty of Care Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010 Offer of Employment Reasonable Adjustments Recruitment

Employers making reasonable adjustments in recruitment

View of the City of London at sunset

An applicant for a job who had dyspraxia asked to make an oral job application instead of filling the online form that the employer required. The employer emailed him with repeated requests asking him to explain what his difficulty was with the online process. The individual had difficulty with written communication, indeed that was the reason behind his request in the first place, so he also struggled to deal with these emails. The employer ought to have realised this as they knew about the dyspraxia. The Tribunal ruled that a reasonable employer would have phoned the applicant in order to understand their situation more fully.

A factual quirk of this case is that the applicant was seeking to return to the same team, with the job applications being judged by the same line manager who had dismissed him 8 months previously (failed probation). Understandably, that may have been behind the employer’s reluctance to engage with the individual but what you don’t get to know is to what extent they knew about the dyspraxia during the probationary period and what reasonable adjustments were made at that stage to assist the individual in order to level the playing field and put them into a position where they might have been able to pass the probationary period.

This case illustrates the importance of making reasonable adjustments not only for your own employees such as probationers but for all job applicants. It also illustrates how sometimes the reasonable adjustment is something very cheap and easy to do (a phone call instead of an email) and how as soon as the employer has knowledge there is a disability they should be making adjustments not waiting for the employee to ask.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

 

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Employment Contract Employment Law Immigration Recruitment Right to Work

Reporting duties — Sponsored workers

The British Union Flag flying from pole on building in London

More and more organisations are sponsoring employees from an immigration perspective, which means those that are working in HR are having to be more familiar with the duties that they have to report to the Home Office in respect of the staff. This means that the issue of immigration isn’t just something that we deal with on recruitment, it means that throughout the life cycle of the employment relationship, we need to be thinking, in any situation, about the sponsorship implications.

Delays to the commencement of work is something that will have to be notified – the reason for the delay. Illness, bereavement and travel disruption will all be legitimate reasons, as will working out notice with a previous employer but essentially, the Home Office want to know if there is any delay. There is a sensible reason for this (making sure the person does come here and start work and does not abscond).

Absences from work, whether that is for maternity or paternity leave, sick leave or strike action, is another notifiable event.

Any changes made to the role, which will include promotion, changing job title or reduction in salary, is something that needs to be reported. This will cover formal promotions but it can also cover less formal changes in core duties, so line management need to be aware that they can’t just make changes without there being implications.

A change of work location to a different site or working from a customer’s premises and working remotely from home on a permanent or full-time basis will all be things that need to be notified, which is another reason why employees should not be given carte blanche to work from anywhere and there are sponsorship angles to your hybrid policies.

You also have reporting obligations if there is any ending to the relationship or the employee is absent without leave for 4 weeks in total during a calendar year.

These changes have to be notified within 10 days so you don’t have a great deal of time to act.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

 

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Communication Employment Contract Employment Law HR Offer of Employment Recruitment Video

Video | Offers vs contracts

Legal contract papers

Our latest video is available to view on the Refreshing Law YouTube channel — please click here to watch Anna discussing a case she read about recently which relates to an issue that she does see cropping up from time to time around what has been offered at interview and in the initial offer letter versus what is in the contractual documentation later on.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

 

Categories
Anna Denton-Jones Employment Contract Employment Law Fraud HR Offer of Employment Recruitment

The implications of falsehoods in CVs

Royal Courts of Justice, London

A Court decision caught my eye when I was reading the legal news. Firstly, the case is interesting because it went all the way to the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court. Secondly, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal. Thirdly, the former employee had been ordered to pay back £97,000 having falsely claimed, in a job application, that he held qualifications and relevant work experience that he did not in fact have.

The case involved somebody called Jon Andrewes who had worked as the Chief Executive of St Margaret’s Hospice in Taunton. He claimed he had a university degree, relevant work experience and even a PhD from Plymouth University, insisting on being called Dr.

There was nothing wrong with his performance in the job, indeed the fact that he worked from 2004 to 2015 and was regularly appraised as either a strong performer or outstanding performer shows that he had not aroused suspicion at an early stage. He had also used similar lies to be appointed to roles as a Director and then Chair of the Torbay NHS Care Trust and as Chair of the Royal Cornwall NHS Hospital Trust.

At some point he was obviously caught out and the whole deck of cards came crashing down.

In 2017 he pleaded guilty to obtaining pecuniary advance by deception and two counts of fraud and was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. The Proceeds of Crime Act of 2002 sets out a confiscation regime whereby criminals are relieved of their ill-gotten gains. In this case, the Crown were seeking an order that his entire earnings during the period of employment under false pretences should be confiscated. This would have been £643,000 (net earnings).

The Court of Appeal had held that it would be disproportionate to expect him to pay something back.

The Supreme Court sought a middle way and ordered he pay £97,000. There was clearly a feeling that to deprive a person of their entire earnings when the employee had apparently done a good job, would be a step too far but they also declined to agree with the employee’s submission that a ‘take nothing’ approach was appropriate. Despite the fact that he had done a good job, the Hospice and two Trusts had sought a person of honesty and integrity and would have chosen another candidate if they had known about the deception.

In carving this middle route, the Supreme Court was clearly trying to represent the difference between the earnings made as a result of the CV fraud and a lower amount of earnings that the defendant would have made had they not committed the fraud.

The same principles will apply whatever the seniority of the employee.

One of the key issues arising in the case is what background checks were done to verify qualifications and information given on the CV. Just because somebody is in a very senior position, all the status doesn’t mean we should not subject them to checks that we might make for more lowly employees. I am not sure how the deception was identified in the end but it does seem that at least 3 HR Departments have some egg on their faces?

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law

Categories
Agency Workers Anna Denton-Jones Case Law Employment Contract Employment Law Employment Rights Act 1996 Recruitment Redundancy Settlement Agreements

The P&O situation

Boat at sea on the horizon

Whilst many will have looked at the behaviour of P&O and criticised them and they are undoubtedly at the extreme end of the spectrum, it has caused me to reflect on the extent to which all organisations from time to time “take a view” about legal risk and to some extent, price that into the decision-making process. I defy anyone in HR to say that they have never done this.

What I think the reaction demonstrates is how far we are moving forward and that ESG is becoming mainstream, with the debate and the discussion about P&O showing that organisations by and large ‘get’ the idea that it’s more than just about legal compliance but treating people fairly and with dignity as well as ensuring the right image for the organisation, in terms of its values is as important, given what can happen with social media.

The Government has clearly been on the backfoot — literally in the days leading up to P&O Friday, following a private members bill, attempting to tackle so called fire and re-hire practices, the Minister stood up in parliament and confirmed that the government had no intention of making any changes in this arena. Fast-forward a couple of weeks and now hasty announcements around a number of steps that are going to be taken in the maritime area to ensure National Minimum Wage etc.

The relevant issue for everyone is in relation to what they have said about a new statutory code on ‘fire and re-hire’ tactics which will be produced. It sounds as though this will be putting what Acas already advise onto a statutory footing, in the same way as we used to with the Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. We are already used to Tribunals and Courts taking the Code into account when considering cases of unfair dismissal and them having the power to uplift the award that is made to any successful employee’s compensation by up to 25% where there has been an unreasonable failure to follow that Code. That is the model that is going to apply here.

At this stage we don’t have the actual Code but I would imagine that it will be following the guidance that is already there to consult with staff, taking into account the background legal position on this issue. Indeed the 11th November 2021 advice published by Acas suggests employers should fully consult their workforces and make every effort to reach agreement on any contract changes, noting that fire and re-hire is an extreme step that can damage staff morale, trust, productivity and working relations. So in effect this is just giving the Acas guidance statutory force. Currently there has been no confirmation of when exactly this will happen.

On another note it looks like the insolvency service has been tasked with considering the circumstances around the CEO of P&O’s failure to lodge the HR1 form which is a criminal offence and the responsible statutory director can be fined for this. I imagine that there is a certain amount of political pressure to ‘make an example’. I know a few years ago I looked into how many times this had actually been done and the evidence base was really small, to the point of being miniscule. However, there were directors who made redundancies during furlough who were prosecuted so there is a precedent. Even if an employer decides to do what P&O did and commence with statutory consultation because they would essentially be buying out that right by making ex gratia payments under a settlement agreement, it would still be important for the HR1 form to be filed as a protection for the directors involved.

Anna Denton-Jones
Refreshing Law