The implementation of equality legislation: the case of disabled graduates and reasonable adjustments

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/irj.12143
• Author: Laura C. William
• Date: 01 July 2016
• Published date: 01 July 2016

The implementation of equality legislation:

the case of disabled graduates and

reasonable adjustments

Laura C. William

ABSTRACT

This article explores how reasonable adjustments, part of UK equality legislation, are

secured in the workplace, and argues that an implementation gap exists where the

impact of the law is weak, despite legal mandates to aid disabled people in

employment. The research points to the importance of employers’knowledge of the

effects disability as a key determinant of securing workplace adjustments.

1 INTRODUCTION

Disability equality has become an established part of United Kingdom (UK) equality

legislation. The Equality Act 2010 protects disabled people against direct and indirect

discrimination, harassment, victimisation and failure to make adjustments. The

Equality Act 2010 affords disabled employees the right to request ‘reasonable

adjustments’(RA), that is changes to the nature of their work role and circumstances

to allow them to continue working with an impairment. Reasonable adjustments can

take the form of alterations to the manner in which work is carried out, such as

working flexibly, undertaking a different balance of duties, the provision of

technological support or alterations to the physical environment. The concept of

reasonable adjustments moves away from the market driven job design model and

focuses on individual needs (Somek 2011). Although disabled employees have the

legal right to seek RA, RAs are often not put in place, confirming discrimination

and disadvantage (Fevre et al. 2010; Foster 2007; Schur et al., 2013) and

suggesting that RA provision can be hampered by restrictive interpretations of the

law (Bell 2015).

Extant literature debates the effectiveness of equality legislation through the lens of

an implementation gap, the difference between what is mandated in law and

workplace practices (Dickens 2012; Heery 2011). This article seeks to provide a

discussion of the factors contributing to an implementation gap by analysing whether,

and how, disabled graduates are able to secure RA. The paper considers the types of

adjustment that disabled graduates secure, the effectiveness of these provisions to

reduce disadvantage and the mediating factors that shape the implementation gap.

Disabled graduates are of particular interest to the study of reasonable adjustments

because the knowledge economy demands skilled graduates (Brown et al. 2011), yet

❒Correspondence should be addressed to Laura C. William, Faculty of Business, University of

Greenwich, Park Row, Greenwich, London SE10 9LS, UK; email: WL88@Greenwich.ac.uk

Industrial Relations Journal 47:4, 341–359

ISSN 0019-8692

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

disabled graduates are, simultaneously, a minority group who might be regarded as

the least desirable to employ based on their particular minority status (Bruyere

et al. 2004; Lengnick-Hall et al. 2008). Disabled graduates are more likely to be

underemployed than their non-disabled counterparts (Tunnah and Leacy 2012),

and while they should be engaging in graduate level work, employers may feel

reasonable adjustments are more problematic as the jobs are more complex to adjust.

Given this particular context it is important to ascertain whether equality legislation

provides adequate protection for disabled graduates, as a subset of the wider disability

population.

The article contributes to current debates in three key ways: first it provides new

information on the ability of disabled people to secure adjustments. Second, previous

research on the nature of the implementation gap has focused on either the character-

istics of an organisation or the role of mediating actors, while this article extends this

analysis to explore the interaction of both factors. Finally, the article identifies the

impact of employer knowledge of the effects of disability on adjustments, but also

the balance of knowledge and responsibility between equality and diversity HR

specialists and line managers. The article proceeds to outline the relevant literature,

the research methodology and presents the data in the context of the research aims.

1.1 The nature and shape of the implementation gap

Drawing on work by Dickens (2012) the efficacy of law can be examined by investi-

gating how law is implemented in practice, in other words, its mediation. Mediation

includes the processes used by actors to translate statutes into workplace practices.

Positive mediation involves complying with the law and ensuring that equal treatment

ensues. Conversely, negative mediation could involve outright rejection of the law but

is commonly more subtle and includes actions that curtail the law’s equality

objectives (Dickens 1989). Mediation may result in an implementation gap, the differ-

ence between what is mandated in legislation and what happens in the workplace.

Research suggests that there is not a sharp dichotomy between the presence and ab-

sence of an implementation gap; instead debate centres on the different situations in

which law is more or less effective in minimising an implementation gap (Heery

2011). Equality legislation has improved equality outcomes in some areas and the

implementation gap is minimal, for example in women’s access to employment

(Hakim 2011), while simultaneously a continued gender wage gap is present (Tijdens

and Van Klaveren 2012). While there is an increased prevalence of formal equality

opportunity policies in both public and private sectors (Van Wanrooy et al. 2013),

formal hiring procedures, defined by legislation, have questionable outcomes on

equality (Kirton and Healy 2009). Given that the extent of an implementation gap

varies, this research focuses on a specific strand of equality, disability.

The implementation gap can be mediated by specific actors—Dickens (2012) found

that trade unions, line managers and civil society organisations mediate legislation.

While historically unions failed to represent minority members (Colgan and Ledwith

2002) more recent evidence suggests that they can improve equality outcomes in

organisations, especially when trade union equality representatives are present in

the workplace (Bacon and Hoque 2012).

The role of line managers is more ambiguous. Dobbin (2009) found line managers

to be central as they gave force to legal mandates. Foster and Scott (2015) and Foster

(2007) report that line managers’knowledge, goodwill and attitudes are central to

342 Laura William

© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd