Does anyone know of anyone in the United States being fired

Post Reply New Topic

from their employment for the sole reason of revealing that they have been officially diagnosed with Aspherger's Syndrome or an Autistic Spectrum Disorder?

I ask this because when I raised the question about seeking an official diagnoses some people seemed concerned that such a thing could happen. Within the United States would it not be illegal to fire someone for that reason under the Americans with Disabilities Act? Also under the Americans with Disabilities Act does not the law require reasonable accommodation? Granted that is a rather broad phrase open to a wide range of interpretations. But still even under the most conservative interpretation it would seem that unless that it was provable that a person simply could not reliably do their job - it would appear to me that it would be illegal to fire someone for simply having the diagnoses.

Does anyone have any firsthand experience dealing with this issue?

I don't have first-hand experience but I do hear of people being fired for carefully designed unrelated issues that wouldn't be illegal to fire them for, and which skirt the issue of anything to do with the person's autism diagnosis -- but gets rid of them all the same. I've seen a post or two here on WP in which someone has mentioned they got fired or "let go" for something else the boss managed to cook up, maybe legitimately, maybe not, that avoids the hot button of the autism disclosure.

So, there's always that.

In my working life I've always found that if someone wants to get rid of a worker, let them go, fire them, they always find the way to do it that avoids legal problems and looks legitimate on paper should it ever be challenged, but we all know is underhand and crappy and cooked up all the same. That's the tricky thing.

.

I second BirdInFlight's assessment of how people get fired in the United States.

People will always "cook up" a reason.

Don't disclose unless it is to your benefit.

It would be illegal for someone to be fired for disclosing that they have a disability under the ADA. However, they have to disclose it right away if asked.

The issue comes in because in the USA, most people are considered At-Will employees rather than contract employees. That means that the employment can end for any legal reason either side can come up with. Employers therefore can use any reason that is legal to fire someone. They can also do this at the application stage where they ask if you have a disability. Answer yes and they can come up with a vague but valid reason why you were not considered. Answer no and disclose later and they can fire you claiming you lied to they on your job application.

Also, what makes this work is that in the USA legal system, whether civil or criminal, the burden of proof is always on the plaintiff and in the case where the plaintiff is claiming the defendant did something that could result in criminal charges, the plaintiff must prove their case without using the defendants records.

The trouble with ADA, is that it has virtually no bite. It's so easy to get around. My impression of ADA is that it more protects blind, deaf, or people in wheelchairs but this is an opinion only. I'm not an attorney.

I am pretty sure you are right. I actually asked a realtor a similar question because I know that he house near ours that will be on the market soon. I asked if the neighbor who is selling the house could disclose that I have Asperger's and Misophonia so that perspective buyers could be aware and could be sensitive to how certain types of noises could be very dangerous and even life threatening for me. Also the lady who lives behind me gets really bad seizures when people play the bass on stereos loudly. I have actually blacked out at a read light in traffic when I was driving my car because of heavy bass playing in a car behind me. I was told that disclosing my Autism and Misophonia is completely illegal in that circumstance and I could be arrested for that but if I were blind or deaf or even in a wheel chair, I would have every right to disclose it. Also if there was a school or a facility for the blind or deaf nearby It would have to be disclosed. The city would also put up signs on my street especially if I were a deaf or blind child warning motorists to drive slowly and pay attention. But I tried to have a quiet zone sign on put up on my street because of my condition and because of the condition of the lady behind me and even though our city has a noise ordinance they said it was illegal to put one up. I also asked the realtor what would happen if someone moved in next door and was so loud that it ended up killing us, which it could, and he said that that would not matter because no one could prove it. The city also said the same thing when I asked about the quiet zone sign.

Last edited by skibum on 18 Jul 2014, 8:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

That's a new one: how could one be arrested for disclosing?

Unless...you reveal that you "black out" at a red light because of a bass playing. Then steps might be taken to take away your drivers' license.

Disclosure, in this climate, is usually not a good idea, except at schools/colleges.

I hope the future, through activism, will become rosier in this regard.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 18 Jul 2014, 8:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Most states are "at will". Meaning you can fire someone for any reason, if it is not illegal. That is a big window. If you can prove that you were fired illegally, the company can be sued. That is usually a very difficult case. You usually need employee eyewitness testimony, and legitimate proof. If you were fired under no fault of your own, you collect unemployment until it runs out, or you find another job. Companies do not like for you to collect unemployment either. It is insurance, just like any other, and they have to pay for it. It can easily cost a company tens of thousands of dollars to fire someone who has been employed for over 9 months, and can collect unemployment under no fault of their own. If you do get fired, and try to collect, unless it is totally obvious that it is your fault, the company usually always makes up a story to try and refuse your unemployment. You should always reject what they say, and talk to a hearing officer. Than they usually do a no show for the hearing, or end up being wrong. Unemployment really doesn't care. They completely understand the games in the system. It is insurance. They don't pay. The company you worked for does.

If a company fires you, because they don't like you, or whatever, than so be it. You probably wouldn't want to work for a company or people who cannot accept the way you are anyways. You will be asking for problems, and abuse.

Yep...that AT WILL thing---bites you in the butt every time!

You could be arrested for trying to interfere with a potential sale of the house. It's considered discrimination to try to interfere with the sale of a house in any way.

Funny though, because when we bought our house we had to fire the first realtor and hire another company because when he first saw the outside of our house with us he said it was a great house for us and then a couple of days later when he saw the inside he tried to tell us it was not the house for us and he wanted to put us in a lesser but more expensive house on the other side of town. Then when we looked at the bids we saw that his office put a bid on it. Fortunately our bid was a little higher and we got it.

I was once told that I should not be allowed to drive because of how the loud bass playing can affect me. Even though it is against the law here to play music that loudly, they will never pull over the person playing the music. The ordinance says that no matter what time of day or night it is, you are not allowed to play your music above a certain amount of decibels and if you do you get a ticket. It also says that if your music is so loud that you make someone else sick, you can be imprisoned for six months or you get a $600.00 fine or both. Now if I am in my house and someone is playing loud music and I call, they will send an officer and if the officer considers it above the decibel limit, they will make the person turn it down. I have done that many times and they always come. But I have never seen anyone pulled over while driving for that even though the police sergeant assured me that they do pull people over. I really don't think they do because I have seen police officers driving and not once have I ever seen one pull somebody over for that. But I have been harassed and told that I should not be driving if I am sensitive to that noise. I even had an officer show up at my door AT MY HOUSE once when I called about a loud bass playing neighbor and the officer told me that I should find somewhere else to go if I could not tolerate the music. I called the sergeant about that and he apologized.

But even though it is totally against the law to play loud music like that usually it's the person who is sensitive to the noise that gets discriminated against. I know that in one state, I forget if it's Iowa or Idaho, the law is that if you play your music loud enough that someone can hear it outside of your car, you get a ticket. Here it has to be above a certain decibel number. They do it that way so that they don't have to be bothered to enforce the law. They can just say, "Oh, we did not have the decibel reader so we have no idea how loud it was." And without an actual decibel number, the judge will always side with the defendant rather than the person who is sensitive to the sound because the plaintiff can't prove that it was above the number.

And even if it literally killed you like if it caused my friend to have such a violent seizure that she ended up dying or if it caused me to black out and then fall and hit my head and die or have a accident in traffic, or if it gave me a heart attack, my heart races wildly sometimes when I hear the loud bass, it would be completely 100% considered my fault. The person who played the music that loudly would have no responsibility at all since no one could prove that they played their music above the legal decibel level and that that was the actual cause of my reaction.

So basically they are completely ignoring enforcing one law that is already in place and then threatening to arrest you if you have a reaction to people breaking the law that is already in place.

I see what you're saying.

I'm glad you fired the first realtor--for obvious reasons. They were doing what they have done in NYC for years. It's like what they used to do in the South pertaining to water fountains, sitting in the back of the bus, and lunch counters.

Yeah, it's pretty disgusting that we are still dealing with this in the 21st century.

Can you provide more information on the statement that the plaintiff cannot use the defendant's records? I thought that was what the discovery proces is designed to do -- to get the records of the other party so that one can use them in court. In every kind of action I know of, plaintiffs are able to use the defendant's records in their case.

"Discovery" probably benefits the defense more than the prosecution.

That seems likely in simple criminal cases, but in many highly technical criminal cases, prosecution may often be unsuccessful without information gained in the discovery process. I think that is especially true for many kinds of securities violations.

In civil cases, it is important for both plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiffs in many civil cases file suit based on them being convinced that they have been wronged but have no proof. They look forward to the discovery process to find the proof they need to prevail in court.

In the SCO vs IBM and SCO vs Novell, SCO basically badly needed to find a smoking gun to prevail.

You're right.