Disclosing medical information to prospective employers

[stringjack]

I came across this article today:

A local authority accused its former managing director of fraudulent behaviour and deceit yesterday, claiming that she withheld her history of depressive illness when applying for the job.

In what is thought to be the first case of its kind, Cheltenham Borough Council accused Christine Laird, 52, of “fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation” at the High Court.

The authority claims that she concealed her medical history, including that she had been taking antidepressants for several years, before she was appointed in February 2002 after a council vote went narrowly in her favour. She held the post, which had been advertised at a salary of between £63,000 and £79,000, until 2005 but from June 2004 she was absent on full pay.

The council is now suing her for £982,000 plus interest, bringing the total to more than £1million.

...

In its statement of claim, the authority said that in her pre-employment questionnaire she had replied “no” when asked: “Do you see yourself as disabled?” Asked whether she enjoyed good health, she had replied, “yes.”

The council said that she had failed to disclose three bouts of moderate depressive illness since May 1997 and had taken time off work. “As a result, the council was wrongly advised that she was medically fit for the job and it proceeded to implement its decision - reached by a narrow 18 to 17 majority - to employ her,” Tim Kerr, QC, told Mr Justice Hamblen. “In consequence, the authority sustained loss and damage of just over £982,000.”

Should employees be required to make medical disclosures of this kind, or be liable if they fail to do so? And, if so, should employers be allowed to use the information in deciding whether or not to employ an applicant?

[JCSkinner]

No, no and it's illegal are the correct answers, I believe.

[stringjack]

No, no and it's illegal are the correct answers, I believe.

On the legal questions: One can't lawfully discriminate against someone with a disability, right? But can one decline to supply the relevant medical information? (Or, if one declines, is it then permissible for the employer to discriminate?)

(I imagine that if one completes the form untruthfully, and signs a statement to the effect that the information provided is true and accurate, then that would later be grounds for dismissal, if not liability.)

[Factorem]

Any military/top secret job (engineering, computers, etc.) requires a full background check.

This include medical records.

Had a bout of mild depression 10 years ago? Tough ********************.

Won't volunteer info? No job. Simple as.

Moral of the story: go see your shrink under a pseudonym and don't ever allow your GP prescribe you the aul Zanax.

[stringjack]

Any military/top secret job (engineering, computers, etc.) requires a full background check.

This include medical records.

Had a bout of mild depression 10 years ago? Tough ********************.

Don't volunteer info. No job. Simple as.

Moral of the story: go see your shrink under a pseudonym and don't ever allow your GP prescribe you the aul Zanax.

Should this be the case?

[Factorem]

Should this be the case?

Of course it's fair!

I don't want nut-jobs liable to have a break down when we need them most with the keys to a nuclear power plant (nor a hospital electricity grid for that matter).

High pressure situations require calm people with steady nerves.

I'd prefer if they got a job in a flower shop or became librarians or something.

[stringjack]

Of course it's fair!

I don't want nut-jobs liable to have a break down when we need them most with the keys to a nuclear power plant (nor a hospital electricity grid for that matter).

High pressure situations require calm people with steady nerves.

I'd prefer if they got a job in a flower shop or became librarians or something.

Do you think libraries and flower shops should be allowed to discriminate?

[Factorem]

Do you think libraries and flower shops should be allowed to discriminate?

Flower shop owners can employ whoever the hell they want. I.e. dreadlocked/tattooed hippies and manic depressants need not apply.

[JCSkinner]

Do you think libraries and flower shops should be allowed to discriminate?

They aren't.
Many employers no longer accept the word of job applicants in this regard and often seek permission to get information on medical histories from applicants' GPs.
I recommend a blanket refusal of such requests. I refused in my most recent job, and had the HR on the phone moaning about 'incomplete records' and somesuch twaddle for a couple of months. They don't like it, but they're not entitled to it and so didn't get it.
I'm still in the job by the way.
Obviously, as has been stated, different standards apply in relation to certain sensitive jobs performing key roles for the state.

[stringjack]

I recommend a blanket refusal of such requests. I refused in my most recent job, and had the HR on the phone moaning about 'incomplete records' and somesuch twaddle for a couple of months. They don't like it, but they're not entitled to it and so didn't get it.
I'm still in the job by the way.

I imagine it's easier to monitor in the case of people in existing jobs than for applicants.

Obviously, as has been stated, different standards apply in relation to certain sensitive jobs performing key roles for the state.

I'm not sure if the standards would be restricted to state employment - there would seem to be a public interest in whether the captain of an oil tanker had ever been treated for alcoholism, for example. Is there even a need to show some public interest? Isn't it reasonable for a corporation to be concerned at the risk posed by certain persons to the effective operation of its business?