Discriminatory hiring process?

Post Reply New Topic

Having had a look, the company seems to be targeted at employing people who need and benefit from extra support within the workplace. (I myself require no special conditions; I ask only for awareness.)

The 'compulsory guardian at interview' thing is still extremely unhealthy, particularly as it seems to be being used as an exclusionary device. If I'm to give these guys the benefit of the doubt, I'd guess that they aren't doing it on purpose - more that the founders conceived the idea as a good thing, but then delegated the actual implementation of it to some clown in Human Resources who has ended up discriminating against higher-functioning autistic people out of incompetence, rather than malice. In a corresponding neurotypical environment, they'd be the kind of people who would mandate that women wore skirts to interviews, and then not understand why they got called out on it.

Having said that, I'd like to hear from some of the autistic employees themselves, and it doesn't seem the company wants that. It seems to be all about parents, guardians, family.

Interview with the founder here: https://medium.com/authority-magazine/n ... ce75e41393 I don't get a good vibe from this - it's veering into Autism Speaks territory. Quote: 'After many years of intervention through the ABA program, Brian became a high-functioning autistic teenager.' In which case, why are we interviewing you, and not Brian?

Just want to share an update that as of Nov 11, 2024 I filed a human rights complaint against the company
for discrimination.

I also went to the media to see if they would see this as a viable story. They pushed a 'feel good' narrative
about this company but the reality is there is more to it.

Also, what makes me laugh is the fact the Edmonton Police spokesperson for this initiative Derek Mcintyre
has faced criminal charges in the past.

https://policemisconductdatabase.ca/off ... ZgrwpFB5RG

Maybe the employer feels that autistic people might meltdown and/or become dangerous in an interview when they come alone, and would be better off in the company of someone who can calm them down?

I sense discrimination from this company, also, from what you have said.

After a quick skim of the thread, it seems like yet another molehill made into a mountain.

The (required) question as to whether one has a guardian or not, means it's required to answer the question, not that it's required to have a guardian. It is common to note when a question is optional or mandatory in such a manner.

The part about bringing your guardian is under the assumption that you do in fact have / need one. If you have a guardian, bring them. If not, then don't - they're not mandating that you go out and get one.

The purpose of bringing the guardian is that, IF you do have / need a guardian, it is advisable to have them on hand, not because "meltdowns", but because since they are your guardian (if you have one), they should also be part of the interview process as support for an individual who does need support, as evidenced by the fact that they DO have a guardian.

This misunderstanding of intent is an example of exactly WHY they want people to bring a guardian, IF they have or need a guardian. So that if the autistic person doesn't understand something, or if the employer doesn't understand something, the guardian can act as a "translator", or otherwise support the individual under their care, as is their job.

@uncommondenominator

Incorrect. They do require you have a 'guardian' in order to be interviewed and employed.
I know because I've dealt with them first hand.

They are denying employment to those on the autism spectrum who do not require a guardian.

It's as simple as that and it is discriminatory.

I think the human rights complaint has a good chance to be successful.

Most adult individuals who would be going for a job would expect to be able to interview without having a guardian being present with them.

There are plenty of other ways for an employer to help along an autistic person in an interview, where interviews are typically a sticking point for autistic individuals. For example, giving some prompts or hints at the type of answers that an employer would want and clarifying questions, or giving a little more time to process/respond for the autistic interviewee.

Infantilizing autistic people by requiring that they bring a guardian to an interview, is blatantly discriminatory, and I think if somebody doesn't understand that, then they probably lack self awareness and/or perhaps an understanding of what discrimination is.

At worst, they are mandating you bring "someone". This person does not have to be a "guardian". You are not required to go get a "guardian".

Rather than take offense at what you think they're implying, just find a friend or family member, and drag them along and be done with it.

Still not actually discriminatory, from what I can glean.

"Discrimination: the treatment of a person or particular group of people differently, in a way that is worse than the way people are usually treated."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/discrimination

Requiring an autistic person to bring a guardian to an interview is a different way of treating a person than would be expected of someone who is an NT. The implications here are that an autistic person cannot get through an interview without a guardian. It is an assumption based on prejudice.

NTs do not have to bring their guardians to an interview, and neither should autistic folk be required to. The fact that this rule is in place, is by definition, discriminatory.