Background to the complaint

1. In 2022, following a traineeship at the European Parliament as part of its Positive Action Programme for Persons with Disabilities, the complainant was invited to apply for a position as a contract agent. For this purpose, he was required to sit Contract Agent Selection Tool (CAST) tests[1]. In his application, he stated that, due to his disability, he had special needs that would have to be accommodated (what is known as ‘reasonable accommodation’[2]).

2. On 29 November 2022, the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) contacted the complainant to receive more information about how to accommodate his needs during the tests. The complainant had a telephone conversation with EPSO, during which EPSO informed him that the tests would take place remotely and that he would be allowed to use his own adapted equipment.

3. The following day, EPSO informed the complainant by e-mail that, contrary to what he had been told by telephone, the tests were scheduled to take place only at a test centre hosted by EPSO’s contractor, which organises the tests. The complainant would receive an invitation on 2 December 2022 to book an appointment to take the tests the following week.

4. In the context of that e-mail and subsequent exchanges, EPSO informed the complainant that some of the reasonable accommodation measures (regarding equipment and the format of the test) that he had requested would be available at the test centre. However, its contractor would not be able to provide all the equipment requested by the complainant.[3] EPSO also instructed him to speak with its contractor before the test “to make everything clear”.

5. The complainant raised concerns that, based on the information provided by EPSO, he would not be able to take the test. However, EPSO could not offer him an alternative solution for taking the tests with all the measures he had requested.

6. On 9 December 2022, the complainant sat the tests at the test centre. Most of the reasonable accommodation measures that he had been informed would be available during the tests were not available.[4] On the same day, he complained to EPSO about the matter.

7. On 14 December 2022, EPSO replied, apologising to the complainant on behalf of its contractor and informing him that he would be invited to resit the tests in February 2023.

8. The complainant wrote to EPSO on two more occasions but, not having received a reply, on 22 January 2023 he turned to the Ombudsman.

9. Subsequently, on 13 February 2023, the complainant sat the CAST tests again, this time at EPSO’s premises. This time, all reasonable accommodation measures were provided and he successfully passed the tests.

The inquiry

10. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry and asked EPSO to reply to the complaint and to clarify how it provides reasonable accommodation to candidates with disabilities, including in the context of remote testing, which is a relatively new development. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman received the reply of EPSO on the complaint and, subsequently, the comments of the complainant in response to EPSO's reply.

EPSO’s reply

11. EPSO said that, after the complainant made it aware of the issues with the initial test, it contacted the contractor that was responsible for the test centre, which confirmed that the reasonable accommodation measures had not been available. EPSO offered the complainant the possibility to resit the tests and on 24 February 2023 informed him that he successfully passed the tests.

12. EPSO said that, since 2023, it has moved to a model of remote testing only for such selection procedures. However, candidates requiring reasonable accommodation can either be invited to EPSO’s premises to sit the tests (and have their travel expenses reimbursed) or, if they choose to take the test from home, they will be able to use their own adapted equipment.

13. EPSO also drew attention to the information it makes available to candidates about reasonable accommodation in EPSO selection procedures.[5]

Comments by the complainant

14. The complainant argued that, although he was subsequently allowed to resit the tests, EPSO had failed to guarantee his right to reasonable accommodation. He argued that, despite his request to resit the tests in the same testing period, it took too long for EPSO to find a solution and re-invite him. In the meantime, the job for which he was invited to compete was filled. The complainant also expressed concern that what he experienced could happen to other candidates with disabilities in EPSO selection procedures.

The Ombudsman's assessment

15. The EU administration, as an equal opportunities employer, must make every effort to avoid discrimination, promote diversity and ensure equal access to job opportunities.

16. EPSO, which is responsible for selecting EU staff, has a particular responsibility in this regard. EPSO has committed itself to provide reasonable accommodation for candidates with special needs.[6]

17. In the course of a previous inquiry concerning EPSO, the Ombudsman drew attention to the difficulties for candidates to sit an exam under conditions that are not properly adapted to their needs.[7] Such incidents are bound to give rise to frustration and to exacerbate what is, by its very nature, a relatively stressful situation. They thus risk impacting upon candidates´ performance in selection procedures that are already highly competitive.

18. In its reply in this inquiry, EPSO provided a detailed chronology of the case, and made available copies of the relevant exchanges. EPSO did not dispute that the complainant was not provided with all the pre-agreed reasonable accommodation measures. However, it regrettably did not explain how the situation experienced by the complainant had occurred.

19. The inquiry showed that the complainant clearly flagged in advance his needs and concrete proposals for reasonable accommodation. EPSO accepted these but, subsequently, after checking with its contractor, informed the complainant that only some of the requested measures would be available. Then, even though EPSO had agreed to these measures, most of them were not in place during the tests.[8] It appears that EPSO did not check with its contractor that the measures would actually be in place on the day of the tests. This was clearly not good administrative practice.

20. While EPSO apologised, it did not acknowledge that it had any responsibility itself. The Ombudsman takes the view that it should do so now.

21. Furthermore, the Ombudsman considers that, in order to prevent such incidents in the future, EPSO should put in place safeguards to ensure that any reasonable accommodation measures to which it agrees before the tests are provided in practice on the day of the tests. This means that EPSO should have in place a system to follow up on the implementation of reasonable accommodation measures in all cases and irrespective of whether a contractor is involved or EPSO itself provides the measures. The Ombudsman will make a suggestion for improvement to EPSO in this regard.

22. In addition, the complainant in this case was invited to sit CAST tests in the context of a recruitment procedure for a concrete open position. However, by the time EPSO finally arranged for the complainant to resit the tests, two months later, the position that the complainant was applying for had been filled. Therefore, this delay in facilitating the resit also impacted on the complainant’s recruitment prospects.

23. CAST tests often concern job openings that need to be filled immediately and are thus normally organised within short deadlines. It is the duty of EPSO to ensure that candidates with special needs can have their reasonable accommodation requests met in the context of these tests.

24. In future, where candidates are required to resit CAST tests due to reasons outside their control, this should take place as soon as possible, so that a candidate is not prevented from participating in a recruitment procedure for a concrete position, thus potentially missing a job opportunity. To address this, the Ombudsman will make a suggestion for improvement to EPSO.

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion:

There was maladministration by EPSO in how it handled the complainant’s request for reasonable accommodation.

The complainant and EPSO will be informed of this decision.

Suggestions for improvement

1. EPSO should put in place safeguards to ensure that any pre-agreed reasonable accommodation measures are provided in practice on the day of the tests. This means that EPSO should have in place a system to follow up on the implementation of reasonable accommodation measures in all cases and irrespective of whether a contractor is involved or EPSO itself provides the measures.

2. In the context of CAST tests, EPSO should ensure that, where candidates are required to resit tests due to reasons outside their control, the rescheduled tests take place as soon as possible.

 

Emily O'Reilly
European Ombudsman
Strasbourg, 07/02/2024

 

[1] https://eu-careers.europa.eu/en/Cast-Permanent

[2] The right to reasonable accommodation is enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Article 27): https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-persons-disabilities.

[3] The complainant stated that, in order to accommodate his needs, he would require specific equipment, such as a separate calculator, a larger screen with an extended arm, a screen magnifier, a higher desk and no exposure to direct sunlight. He also requested other measures, such as more time and more breaks. EPSO told the complainant that its contractor had stated that no screen arm would be available but that it would move the screen closer to him.

[4] Both regarding the format (additional time and breaks) and equipment (problems with the magnifier, text and the location of the desk in the test room).

[5] https://eu-careers.europa.eu/en/documents/step-step-guide-requesting-reasonable-accommodations-adjustments-epso-selection-tests

https://eu-careers.europa.eu/en/system/files?file=2022-10/en_Overview%20of%20possible%20reasonable%20accommodations%20%28adjustments%29%20in%20selection%20tests-03102022.pdf

https://eu-careers.europa.eu/en/selection-procedure/equal-opportunities-diversity-inclusion/how-to-request-special-adjustment

[6] https://eu-careers.europa.eu/en/selection-procedure/equal-opportunities-diversity-inclusion 

[7] See paragraph 30 of the Ombudsman’s recommendation in her joint inquiry into complaints 1337/2017/EA and 1338/2017/EA, available at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/recommendation/en/107637

[8] Notably, as regards the equipment, the physical space and the format of the test (time and breaks).