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.

Last edited by JamesW on 16 Oct 2024, 3:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

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.

They could have any number of reasons to ask for a guardian.
I think they want someone who they can manipulate/influence more easily.

The work they offer is tedious as the company founder admits.

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.

Also, if and when they hire an applicant that has a guardian, do they demand that the guardian comes to work with the employee? Sooner or later the employee will have to perform alone without the guardian.

Granted I am not a lawyer but I can't wrap my head around a situation where the job interviewer would not only allow, but require a "guardian" to attend a job interview

I am skeptical of your assessment.

Regardless, there are numerous reasons as to why what they are doing is in fact not discriminatory in the manner you have described.

Anywho, good luck.

What the company is saying is effectively 'We know you have autism, but if you don't want a guardian, we don't hire you'.

It's a form of discrimination because people with autism have a right to be treated fairly.

Actually, they are. This is kind of the point.

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.

You are entitled to hold whatever view you want of the situation.

I wonder what will become of the human rights complaint. That's what I am interested in.

"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.

By this logic, autistic individuals should simply be held to the same standard as NT's, because to treat them differently is to discriminate between two types of people. If I treat Autistic Person A differently than NT Person B, then by definition, I am discriminating. Therefore, they should both be held to the same standard. Right?

If I'm hiring for a phone receptionist, and the ability to hear is mandatory for the position and duties, is it now discriminatory to mandate that a hearing-impaired person wear their hearing aid to work, since I wouldn't expect a non-hearing-impaired person to do the same?

The whole point of that hiring process is that it is specifically to help autistic individuals. Doesn't that make it discriminatory against NTs? And anyways, if the whole point of an autistic-friendly workplace is that they make accommodations specifically for autistic people, then the assumption is that since you're autistic, you can't do what NTs do, and need special accommodations. And how dare they assume that you can't do what an NT does! Even though the big complaint is that autistics can't always do what NTs do.

I mean, why on earth would people assume that you need additional help, when applying specifically for a job that is explicitly for people who need additional help? Crazy, right?

Believe it or not, there are many forms of "discrimination" which are entirely legal and justified.

I get that asking some individuals to bring a support person might insult them personally, but that doesn't mean it does HARM. And yet, to plenty of other autistic people, being able to a have support individual would be a godsend, and an ideal situation. Leaving it up to the individual means that some individuals might not bring someone, when they really should have, which would leave them at a disadvantage. OTOH, asking that everyone does this, which is not an unfair broad assumption, as many autistic individuals do need support, while it may offend you, it certainly doesn't put you at a disadvantage. Just cos you don't think you need one, and even if you didn't need one, that still doesn't mean you couldn't benefit from it.

But hey, not my life, not my choice, not my bed to sleep in.

Please do keep us updated on what comes of that lawsuit of yours.