Navigating Workplace Accommodations: A Personal Account of Misapplication of the Computer Misuse Act

In the ever-evolving landscape of workplace policies, ensuring that employees with disabilities are accommodated appropriately can sometimes become complicated. This post explores a deeply concerning experience involving the Computer Misuse Act of 1990 and the challenges faced by an individual navigating their rights in the workplace.

Having been part of my current organization since 2006, I was fortunate to find support from my manager regarding my visual impairment from the start. During the interview process, it was agreed that using high contrast mode on my computer display would significantly improve my comfort and efficiency as I performed my duties. Adapting my workspace in this manner made a world of difference as I settled into my role.

However, the situation took an unexpected turn with the arrival of new management late last year. Within days of their takeover, I was summoned for what was described as a ‘friendly chat’ regarding the company’s acceptable use policy. This meeting raised several red flags for me. Aside from adjusting my display settings and enabling auto-save in Microsoft Office, I had never altered any settings or misused company resources. My internet usage has consistently remained focused solely on work-related tasks.

To my disbelief, during our meeting, the management expressed their discontent with my high contrast display setting, despite my previous conversations with my former manager. I attempted to explain that this adjustment was a necessary accommodation for my visual impairment, but my remarks were dismissed without consideration.

What followed was a perplexing and distressing series of events. I was made to understand the gravity of the situation, with references to the Computer Misuse Act 1990 implying that my actions could be categorized as a serious breach. I was even compared to Gary McKinnon, a figure infamous for hacking crimes, despite the glaring difference between my situation and his actions. My adjustment was merely a means to facilitate my work, not an act of malice or misuse.

Upon returning to my workstation the following day, I discovered that I could no longer access the high contrast mode. A message popped up, indicating that this function had been restricted due to administrative constraints. When I raised my concerns, the response was dismissive, with sarcasm suggesting that we managed just fine before such modern adjustments were available.

From a legal standpoint, I find myself in a precarious position. How can I be accused of misusing company policy for making a reasonable adjustment aimed at enhancing my work performance? Additionally