The Interview Adjustment Request

The issue is reasonable accommodation for a candidate with a disability. The purpose is not to give an advantage; it is to remove a disadvantage so that the candidate can be assessed on their ability. The duty is not satisfied by granting the easiest part of the request and ignoring the rest. Each element needs individual consideration: the ground-floor room is a clear accessibility need; the break may be necessary for managing fatigue, pain or medication; questions in advance may or may not be reasonable depending on what the assessment is testing. The medical certificate should be handled confidentially and not circulated to the panel beyond what is necessary.

I would not simply follow the panel chair's instruction. I would acknowledge the chair's concern about fairness and explain that reasonable accommodation is a legal entitlement and a fairness measure. I would then check the venue options: can the training event be moved, shortened or swapped to another room? Is there an accessible alternative nearby? I would consult the candidate about what is essential and what can be adapted. If questions cannot be released in full, perhaps the topic areas or format can be shared. The decision and rationale should be recorded.

I would be respectful but clear, because the chair may be thinking about consistency rather than exclusion. I would say something like: 'I understand the concern about advantage. The purpose of the adjustment is to put the candidate on the same footing, not a better one. The ground-floor room is straightforward and we can solve it by moving the training event. The break is a short scheduling change. The request for questions in advance is the one that needs proper assessment: if the interview is testing how someone thinks on their feet, releasing questions could undermine the assessment. But we should decide that on the evidence, not on a general rule, and we should tell the candidate what we can and cannot provide and why.'

I would also point out the risk of refusing without reasons: it invites a complaint and may breach the public body's equality obligations. I would offer to draft the response for the chair's approval and to keep the medical information confidential. The aim is to move the chair from 'we don't normally' to 'what does this candidate need and what is reasonable in this assessment?'

Fairness does not mean treating everyone identically; it means giving everyone an equal opportunity to demonstrate their ability. Other candidates are not disadvantaged if a candidate who faces an accessibility barrier receives a ground-floor room or a break. They would be disadvantaged if the assessment standard were lowered or if one candidate received information that others could not reasonably have. That is why the questions-in-advance request needs a principled decision. If the interview tests spontaneous reasoning, releasing the exact questions to one candidate changes the assessment. If it tests preparation and structured thinking, sharing the questions or topic areas may be a reasonable adjustment that can be offered consistently.

The practical approach is to separate access adjustments from assessment-content adjustments, grant the access ones immediately, and assess the content one against the competency being tested. The candidate should be told what will happen and why. The panel should apply the same scoring rubric to everyone. The record should show that the request was considered, not just refused. This protects both the candidate's rights and the integrity of the competition.