Mom of Autistic Child Sues Autim Speaks for Discrimination

Post Reply New Topic

I find that many of the so called professions who want to "advocate for us" to be the biggest detriment. This article is on reason why I'm so against Autism Speaks representing autistic people.
Click here for article.

Well she is right to sue them.......I hope she wins.

Autism Speaks seems to be caught between a rock and a hard place. There are a few ways to view this dilemma. Strictly and simply as a job, you're expected to find accomodations for yourself and your family. If I worked, for instance, at Mercy General Hospital, it is up to me to find a place for myself and my family. All Mercy has to do is give me a paycheck. It does look bad for Autism Speaks to deny accomodations to her autistic son, but it does look good for her as it was the basis for them rescinding her job offer in the first place. It's true that companies may rescind an offer of employment without disclosing the reason why, and they're protected by state laws for doing just that, but ethically it doesn't look so good.

I read the article link. It looks to me like both sides are in the wrong. The mother erred when she did not bring up her need for work place accommodations at the first interview, or until the 5th interview. She went through all those interview levels to get the job, and waited until the last minute to bring that up! This is an important item to mention when applying for a job, so she basically screwed herself by saving it to the last minute.

Autism Speaks screwed up by not practicing what it preaches. However, it's work place system of operations may not be set up to deal with such accommodations. Strange if not though, as it would seem to prevent the hiring of mothers with children. All mothers with kids need to have some kind of accommodations to deal with occasional problems with the kids.

So both sides are in the wrong here.

You would think that with enough articles like this people would finaly stop defending autism speaks.

But then again I doubt it

She'll have won a small victory as long as this gets a fair amount of publicity. If she makes a big fuss and news crews get on it, everyone will know, and AS won't be as "viable" an organization unless they really

That article could use some editting. It really bothered me.

I knew that it was only a matter of time. It was bound to happen sooner or later. I hope the story gets lots of publicity.

I read the full text of the complaint.

I think AS is going to get burned on this one. She has a legit complaint. She only asked for flexibility on Wednesday and they said no, then she said "Ok, I got a babysitter" then they said "Offer recended."

I don't see how AS will make a case, but it will be very interesting to read their reply.

They key question for the court is the reasonableness of the accommodations. I could see AS being within the law if she said "I can't work weekends because of my son." Being that she's a walk coordinator, it could be considered unreasonable for her never to be able to attend walks.

I'm not sure. Unless there is more to the story, I think AS is going to loose.

But then again, they will have to file a motion for summery judgement and outline there case.

No defense here, just a desire to allow the process to work. We only have 1 side of the story.

yes very true.
many groups like the AFF and the ASAN have cheapened there integrity with mindless AS bashing.

That why I avoid organized politics and take an existential grass roots approach

The position was actually a leadership position that required a 9 to 5 schedule, advertised for the position consistently from state to state where these identical positions are publicly advertised. If Ms.Greggs had indicated she would not be able to work that schedule in the beginning, she would not have been considered for the position. The organization made that clear on her first notification that she was consistently not going to be able to meet the required work schedule.

The problem is that Autism Speaks advertises these positions in different states; they can't reasonably provide preferential treatment for one employee and not do the same for other employees in similar positions, as they do attempt to hire parents and individuals on the spectrum in these type of positions.

If Autism Speaks based the decision on disability they are clearly in violation of the law, but if it was based on standard policy, per working schedules, that can be evidenced, they are within legal parameters.

It obviously is not going to make anyone that hates the organization, hate them any less, regardless of what the decision of the court is.

And it clearly won't stop people who are willing to make excuses on their behalf.

It's cases like these that make people think "Autists feel self-entitled and want special privileges".

If this discussion was centered around any other organization than autism speaks, it's likely that the facts of the case would be the focus rather than Autism Speaks.

There are sites like "The age of Autism" where autism speaks is hated, because they do not support vaccines as the cause of autism, where points of reason, are not even entertained, and conversely there are neutral sites, where the issue is viewed more analytically than through previous bias against the organization.

It would be nice if all employers could arrange work schedules so parents could stay home with their children, and all other family members that require assistance, with and without disabilities, but unfortunately there are some positions in organizations where people are required to be in the workplace to do the job at set hours.

Accommodations in work schedules are certainly reasonable for a child that is sick, with a disability, but it's not reasonable for a business to be required by law to change it's operations because a parent would rather stay home with a child with a disability coming home from school early, rather arranging for a caretaker, when there is a requirement for a set working schedule. If the law required that many businesses would not be able to continue operations, because there are many other conditions that meet ADA requirements, meeting the definition of disability, including conditions like diabetes.

It would be a different issue, per reasonable accommodation if the job was advertised as a job with flexible working hours, but as evidenced below this position description from the autism speaks organization is specifically advertised as a position requiring a work schedule of 9 am to 5 pm.

The woman knew this going in, and waited to be hired to tell the organization she wasn't going to be able to meet the requirement, because of her son's school schedule. If she thought that Autism Speaks was going to have to accommodate once she was hired, because of the ADA, she didn't apparently have understanding of the law, as case law already provides a ruling on this specific issue.

As far as I know she is not represented by an attorney, so she doesn't have much to lose by pursuing the issue other than time and effort, as I don't doubt she seriously believes she is in the legal right, in her accusations. In my reading of the laws that govern this issue, and the facts the woman has presented, I can't imagine that a lawyer would take the women's money, in pursing the case, in what appears to be a fairly cut and dry issue, per previous legal ruling on this issue of accommodation and the ADA.

There are no details of the conference call other than what Ms.Gregg provided that autism speaks refused to accommodate her autistic child. That is the way the woman views the situation, instead of from the perspective of the employer in the requirement of the job to work a 9 to 5pm schedule, that was clearly identified in the job announcement from the beginning of her pursuit of the position.

If there is any record of autism speaks affording this accommodation in a similar circumstance for an employee in a similar position, it would not seem reasonable that they would not afford Ms. Gregg this accommodation, however Autism Speaks has identified that they operate the organization according to established business principles, which in the real world, requires consistent standards for employees, regardless if the law requires it or not, to maintain a working environment viewed as fair and equitable by employees.

As one can imagine the situation if their Walks manager in Maryland was allowed a flexible schedule to stay at home with her children per school schedule changes, and the Walks manager in New Jersey was not allowed that same flexibility, there would be one happy employee and one disgruntled employee. If the child was sick and no caretaker was available, in the course of employment I would hope that autism speaks would make that accommodation, but in the real world in many organizations it often is not an option.

Other countries provide laws protecting this type of reasonable accommodation, when a child or family member is sick, but the US doesn't; a country where employment at will is the standard, unless one is protected by a union, government job, the family medical leave act, or in situations regarding accommodations and the ADA, if an employer was evidenced to change an employees schedule by malicious intent, to make a hardship on an employee taking care of a child with a disability, in an attempt to get rid of an employee.

Those type of cases are hard to prove, but per case law, some have been successful. It does not apply to this situation though, because the requirement of the work schedule was already identified to the woman when she applied for the position.

Here is the position description:

http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSeeker/Jobs/JobDetails.aspx?job_did=J3G2XH6B1KYWVH0G4RK




And here is case law that covers an issue like this, when there is a requirement for a regular schedule, and accommodations cannot reasonably be made:



http://www.stepnowskilaw.com/ADA-Parents.html

Per the full complaint linked below, Ms. Greggs was accepted for employment on April 23 and was scheduled to start employment on May 7th.

Instead of discussing whether or not flexibility could be afforded in scheduling during the interview process or immediately after her acceptance of employment on April 23th, Ms. Greggs, waited to inform the employer of her child care issue on May 6th, Sunday, the day before she was scheduled to start working.

The complaint itself seems to contradict itself, in that in the “nature of the claim” section of the complaint it states that “the Plaintiff then made other arrangements and was able to retain a babysitter for her son for that day. Defendants then rescinded the employment offer. When Plaintiff asked why, Defendants wouldn’t tell her and then blurred out a derogatory remark. When Plaintiff tried to contact the CEO, Defendants threatened a harassment suit on the Plaintiff.”

But, in the factual allegations per #15, it is stated as follows: “On May 7, 2012, a conference call took place with Ms. Greggs, which included, Ms. Gibbons, Ms. DeSaules, Ms. Wilbanks, and Ms. LePage, stating that they were rescinding the employment offer because they did not want to make any accommodations for the care of her Autistic child.”

First it is stated that Autism Speaks did not give a reason for rescinding the employment and then a different account is provided in factual allegation #15 that Autism Speaks provided the reason was that they did not want to make any accommodations for the care of her Autistic Child”. And in that factual allegation the alleged “blurred” (which I’m guessing was a typo for blurted) derogatory remark or threat of harassment suit was not even mentioned. There is likely more to that conference call that the employees from autism speaks witnessed, that will be provided during the trial.

A very limited account of the conference call was provided in factual allegation #15, on May 7th. It is not stated who called whom, or whether or not the issue was discussed further, before the offer was rescinded.

However, if the decision to rescind the position was based strictly on the events of May 6th, which we don’t know at this point, that in itself would likely have been reason enough to rescind the offer, if higher level management discussed the events of May 6th with Ms Gibbons, and determined it was not a responsible action to wait until the weekend on a Sunday before employment to try to negotiate an accommodation in schedule, when the prospective employee knew that a regular working schedule was a requirement of the position from the start of the process, per the job announcement description.

However, since allegation #15 specifically states Autism Speaks was not willing to provide the accommodation, at this point we don’t if it was discussed again in the conversation by Ms. Greggs, or whether she made the phone call to discuss the issue again.

It was an intelligent business decision to provide a conference call with a number of Autism Speaks employees, to verify the statements that were made in that conference call. So far all we have is a very limited statement from the Defendant as to what the full nature of that conference call was.

Autism speaks could have avoided the bad press, provided by the accusation, by settling out of court, however they are not selling vehicles, they are providing services to help people, and wouldn’t seem reasonable to me to use the funds of supporters, to settle an attempt to sue the organization with this type of allegation, if it is not based on solid legal grounds.

That’s the price of running any organization; people will sue, if they feel like their rights have been imposed on, but there are always two sides of the story, one of which has been told so far by the defendant. The way I see it at this point, it’s not likely she has a winnable case, even if autism speaks lawyers were not to provide anything other than the evidence that Ms. Greggs has provided so far, along with applicable case law.

http://www.rescuepost.com/files/autism- ... plaint.pdf

Sorry, Hog, you're wrong this time. She only <i>asked</i> if she could have flexibility on Wednesday to pick up her son and they said no. She was willing to work something out but they rescinded the offer anyways.

Do you work for AS? You simply refuse to view them without your rose tinted glasses.