Equality Act and Rail Staff.

[nuts & bolts]

As a member of the public with a protected characteristic under the 2010 equality act I wonder if rail staff are given adequate training.

On Thursday day my train was terminated one stop early fair enough was told the next train would go through , and as I missed my connection they would order a taxi in a city location (next stop) to take me home.

All of a sudden they changed their mind and told me to go to another platform they would order one there ,told me one would be there in 20-25 mins , 70 mins later was still sitting on the platform without any explanation at all.

I had a panic attack and asked for an or for them for an ambulance or to find me a local premier inn.

They did not do this but told me about their rights instead obviously I though I might collapse as had happened before , so was quite faint they then threatened to call the police and did not I wish they had as I was at my wits end.

Have had to get on to the equalities commission for advice which they gave me altogether disgusting in 2017.

They did not seem to realise I was in distress at all.

At my TOC staff receive training during their corporate induction, this includes
Disability awareness, dealing with vulnerable people and the Equalities act 2010.

 

[dviner]

any impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities. (long term usually meaning over a year - substantial is open to a lot of interpretation).
e.g., type 1 diabetes probably would count, type 2 probably not ( Metroline Travel Ltd v Stoute )

Metroline Travel Ltd v Stoute link was closely followed by Dawson v Qdos Training link 2.

In short, in the first case, the Employment Tribunal ruled that Stoute's type 2 diabetes was a disability, but Metroline successfully appealed. In the second case, the Employment Tribunal ruled that Dawson's type 2 diabetes was a disability and Qdos haven't appealed (as far as I can see).

The differences between the two being that Stoute was controlling his diabetes through diet, while Dawson was taking medication.

I don't know if I'm missing something, but I think that all members of the public have a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010; I've got 6. 7 could be a possibility - dependent on whether type 2 diabetes is a disability or not.

 

[tony_mac]

In short, in the first case, the Employment Tribunal ruled that Stoute's type 2 diabetes was a disability, but Metroline successfully appealed. In the second case, the Employment Tribunal ruled that Dawson's type 2 diabetes was a disability and Qdos haven't appealed (as far as I can see).

The differences between the two being that Stoute was controlling his diabetes through diet, while Dawson was taking medication.

Thanks for the link - it looks more like that the difference is in how much the condition affected their daily lives.
Dawson apparently suffered from tiredness, poor memory, dizzy spells, and blurred vision and was unable to drive - despite medication. Stoute had to avoid sugary drinks.
It does show that having a specific medical diagnosis (or not) is not always enough to indicate a disability.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Just a couple of pointers to the OP.

This forum is attended by people with an interest in the railway. That includes railway staff, but not only railway staff. There are enthusiasts and general interest people on here too, including railway press, preservationists, rail lobbyists and other stakeholders. Demandin a answer to a question during a bank holiday and aimed at railway staff isnt going to generate many responses.

Have you considered carrying l a medic-alert bracelet or a blue-assist badge?

 

[jon0844]

From what I've read, the real breach in the Equality Act here was demanding a Premier Inn room without considering alternatives like a Travelodge or Best Western.

 

[All Line Rover]

Not quite...it is called the equality act for a reason! The baker example you used is often thrown around, and the reason they have to, is because the people wanting the cake have to be treated equally. They are not getting something noone else can have, but equally, they are not getting preferential treatment. They are just getting equality. You do have to make reasonable adjustments to give them equality, but a hotel room is not reasonable.

You said (post #51): "Were you treated differently to anyone else? If not, they have broken no rules."

In the bakery example, homosexual persons would be getting something no-one else can have (if the bakery was legally required to serve them against the owner of the bakery's wishes), because the bakery would refuse to serve any customer requesting a cake with gay message, regardless of whether any particular customer is themselves gay.

As it happens, assuming we are talking about a bakery which offers a free choice of messages rather than a set list (let's not make things complicated!), the Equality Act 2010 applies in respect of any customer requesting a cake with a gay message.

A better example than a bakery, however, is working arrangements. A job which requires frequent and lengthy stays away from home does discriminate against women. It is likely to be capable of being justified under the relevant provisions of the Act, but it is still discriminatory. The Equality Act is certainly not as simple as "as long as you are not treated differently to anyone else, no rules can ever have been broken".

 

[island]

Nor is it as simple as "if you have been treated differently to anyone else, the rules have been broken".