Mom of Autistic Child Sues Autim Speaks for Discrimination

Post Reply New Topic

In the actual text of the full complaint the woman that made the complaint stated in one section that autism speaks did not give a reason for rescinding the offer of employment, and then in another statement in the same complaint stated autism speaks rescinded the offer of employment because they were not willing to accommodate her autistic son's day care needs.

It's highly unlikely a paid attorney is involved in this complaint as they would likely never have allowed an inconsistency like that in a complaint.

Regardless of whether or not one agrees with autism speaks decision not to accommodate individuals in these 9 am to 5 pm positions to meet school schedules for childcare concerns, they are within their legal rights per case law to maintain required organizational schedules, and to refuse the accommodations.

At this point since the complainant states in the first part of her complaint that autism speaks did not provide a reason for rescinding the offer, none of us know the full extent of the events of the conference call or what their business based decision was in rescinding the offer of employment. If her first statement is factual in the complaint it appears her second statement is her personal opinion that autism speaks rescinded employment based on not willing to provide an accommodation of daycare for her autistic son.

This position was a position that required a high level of meeting deadlines and reaching goals. Waiting until the Sunday before one starts employment on a Monday, to attempt to make a serious negotiation in a regular schedule of employment, when it could have reasonably been discussed when the job offer was made two weeks prior, is a red flag for any employer. That is not an issue of refusing employment based on an accommodation, it is an issue of whether or not the individual is determined as the right person for the job, based on their evidenced behavior.

If this was the issue of concern apparently Ms Gibbons was willing to accommodate it, but her superiors had a greater overall concern over whether or not this was the right person for the job.

At this point though we don't know whom initiated the conference call or what the full discourse of that conversation consisted of. It apparently became a heated one, if it is true that the organization threatened a lawsuit of harassment as per the complainant's statement in the first part of the complaint that described the conference call.

Considering the inconsistencies evidenced in the complaint it is highly unlikely this complaint will be accepted as a case for court, unless the inconsistencies are corrected. If so, we will likely never hear autism speaks side of the story, as it is a private personnel issue, that would not be appropriate for any organization to discuss with the general public.

If the inconsistencies in the complaint are corrected and the accepted for trial, then the results of the trial will be a matter of public record.

There's absolutely no evidence that her offer was rescinded due to discrimination. If she wants to sue them, she needs to find another reason.

No I don't work for Autism Speaks and am not associated with them in any way. I enjoy details and as well as providing them. I've also been in a position for decades required to meet the needs of customer support, and realize it is impossible to please everyone no matter how hard any organization or individual tries.

But, in an analysis of this organization, one wouldn't be employed with the organization if they were foolish enough as a group of 4 high ranking officials in the organization to exceed their legal obligations per disability law. The founder of the organization was a vice president for GE and a President for NBC, he knows how to run a business, and well run businesses don't make these mistakes, by instituting checks and balances. Four witnesses in a conference call, leaves little to no room for error.

But, anyone can file a lawsuit, it doesn't even require an attorney, just filling out some paperwork and sending it to the right folks. It's the first time anyone has even been reported as attempting one for a personnel issue associated with this organization. That's a pretty good record for an organization of this size, and scope, as people will attempt to sue, if they have a perception that their legal rights have been abused, whether or not that perception matches case law or not.

The apparent inconsistency in the complaint would likely only be noticed by someone that didn't hate the organization and was looking at the complaint through clear colored glasses; in my opinion life is too short to hate a charitable organization, if one doesn't agree with their mission and goals.

But if the courts do not accept the case, the complaint is evidenced as not having merit standing on it's own. I won't be surprised at that point if some go as far as suggesting the courts are crooked and associated with autism speaks in some nefarious way. I'm not sure what tint glasses is associated with an opinion such as that, but as far as know it is not clear ones.

I would have to agree with aghogday on this one.I too am in the customer service business,and it is impossible to please everyone.I dont think autism speaks has ever meant to hurt anyone.just thought lessness.they need better P.R

The mother offered to hire a sitter to close the potential gap in her schedule. I don't see how you can't blame AS for rescinding the employment offer.

The full complaint, linked below, is provided entirely from the point of view of the complainant and has inconsistencies in it that don't match the brief description of the complaint provided in the topic article.

Ms. Gregg, the plaintiff, clearly describes in the complaint that she asked autism speaks why they were rescinding the employment offer, and they would not tell her, then she goes on later in the complaint and states they rescinded the offer of employment, "because they did not want to make any accommodations for the care of her Autistic child.”

The brief topic article highlights the parts of the complaint that put autism speaks in a bad light, but fails to mention the inconsistencies in the complaint that indicate that while the plaintiff may think she knows why autism speaks rescinded the employment, the organization has not disclosed that reason to her, per her own statement.

The organization does not have to legally provide a reason to the employee for rescinding an offer of employment. She is claiming that they did it because of discrimination, however the facts provided in her own complaint, provides evidence that she waited until the day before employment to negotiate a change on a Sunday, which per most business standards is not reasonably acceptable action for an employee moving into a highly responsible position, when that negotiation could have been made two weeks earlier.

Again, I don't know if that was the reason or not, but the full complaint, linked below, signed by the plaintiff, provides evidence that at this point autism speaks has not actually disclosed their reason for rescinding the employment offer, as quoted here in the nature of the claims part of the complaint:



And in the factual allegation section, she alleges a reason why the employment was rescinded, as quoted below. She words it in a way that can be interpreted that autism speaks specifically provided a cause for rescinding the employment, but it is in factual opposition to her statement above, which if intended as such, indicates that the statement below was an opinion/belief of the reason, not an actual reason provided by the organization, per rescinding the offer of employment.



She can provide a personal belief in the factual allegations per the Verification clause made at the end of the complaint as quoted below.



http://www.rescuepost.com/files/autism-speaks-complaint.pdf

I don't care if it's AS's fault or not, any excuse to get the media to burn AS in the hellhole it deserves is justified.

That point of view is likely shared by others, and why many people were not able to discern the inconsistencies of the complaint, as they were hoping for harm for the organization, rather than an reasonable analysis of the complaint.

The mainstream media hasn't even touched this complaint; a legal analyst with a mainstream media firm, would not likely provide it the light of day as currently written. The only places the information has been provided to date, is one website that is pro-vaccine and does not appreciate the fact that autism speaks supports the benefits of vaccines, and another site that is focused on the social model of disability, that does not align itself with the views of organizations that support the medical model of disability. From there bloggers and other websites that have shared that information. It is fairly obvious that most of the sites are singing to the choir of individuals that have already determined they don't support autism speaks.

If it was a serious issue of potential justified offense presented in the mainstream media, then the organization would have something significant to worry about, as far as losing potential support.

There were a few people that appear to have legal backgrounds that have pointed out the inconsistencies of the complaints in both source blogs at this point, even ones that didn't care for the organization, maintaining a neutral point of view, on the issue.

Burning an organization where no legal offense is conclusively evidenced, is never justified in the eyes of the law. It's why one won't likely see a credible mainstream media source attempting to portray it as anything other than what it is, as the details of the complaint are public record.