Conformity may demand changing the equipment, circumstances, or workplace, such as hiring a sign language interpreter for deaf and mute workers, balanced with cost, feasibility, and whether modifications can be initiated to eliminate the burden to the disabled employee (Barnes et al. 1998).
However, the theoretical outcome of legislation against discrimination is unclear. By providing them supplementary privileges, disabled individuals are more apt to work or provide labour. Yet greater expected expenditures may discourage employers from employing disabled workers (Oliver 1995). Without successful implementation strategies, employers will attempt to evade such additional costs. Such implementation can either be informal, such as ‘name and shame’, or formal, such as through ‘tribunals and courts’ (Massie 1994, 92). The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 created guidelines to deter discrimination against disabled individuals. It characterises a disabled individuals as an individual with mental or physical impairment which has a considerable and permanent damaging impact on his/her capacity to perform normal daily life activities (Great Britain 1995).
Part II of the Act which was enforced in 1996 is grounded on the philosophy that disabled individuals should not be discriminated against in the workplace or employment or when looking for employment (Barnes et al. 1998). DDA 1995 stipulates that, as abovementioned, employers may have to undergo practical changes if their employment guidelines or workplaces situate disabled individuals at a considerable disadvantage in relation to physically able individuals (Great Britain 1995). This comprises the provision of supporting services or assistances. Nonetheless, there has been no preventative obligation to instigate these changes under the legislation. DDA 1995 initially enveloped employers with at least 15 workers (Barnes et al. 1998). Since 2004 this immunity has been