Buddy says: No, the EAT has recently held in O'Hanlon -v- HMRC 2006 that under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA), a reasonable adjustment to provide more sick pay to a disabled person than to a non-disabled person would only rarely have to be fulfilled.

Employer information: Under s4A(1) DDA, an employer must take reasonable steps where any "provision, criterion, or practice applied by or on behalf of an employer" places the disabled person at a substantial advantage in comparison to those who are not disabled. Failing to adhere with this duty where such a duty occurs will amount to discrimination against that person (s3A(2) DDA).

The Court of Appeal had previously decided in Nottinghamshire County Council -v- Meikle 2004, that employers potentially had a duty to make reasonable adjustments to their sick pay policies to ensure that disabled employees are not discriminated against.

In O'Hanlon, the Claimant claimed under the DDA, stating she was substantially disadvantaged by the sick pay policy and that the HMRC had failed to make reasonable adjustments to its policy to benefit her whilst absent due to her clinical depression.

The EAT held that although it agreed Mrs O'Hanlon was disadvantaged, the HMRC had made all reasonable adjustments. The EAT went on to add, it would be extremely rare to give a disabled person higher sick pay than a non-disabled person as it could be deemed to be "wage fixing for the disabled sick". The purpose of the DDA is to "recognise the dignity of the disabled and to require modification than enable them to pay a full part in the world of work...it is not to treat them as objects of charity".

It will now therefore, be difficult for a disabled person to benefit from further full pay once the exhaustion of any contractual entitlement, an exception being where the employer has caused the absence by failing to make a reasonable adjustment which would have allowed the disabled person to stay at work (Meikle).