Discriminatory hiring process?

Post Reply New Topic

I voted yes, because I think it's unreasonable of them to insist that you take anybody along if you can't find anybody suitable (Aspies often have difficulty in finding allies), or if you simply feel you'd rather rely on your own mettle when you communicate with them. Don't know whether their insistence is down to an infantilising attitude towards Aspies, or whether it's just bureaucratic insensitivity or plain clumsiness.

It might have been wiser for you not to have directly told them you weren't going to comply with one of their demands, as that could have triggered somebody at the company into a back-covering, "more than my job's worth" reaction. In other words, it might have worked better to refuse a little more indirectly. But who knows what goes on in the heads of the people who design and run these "Aspie-friendly" initiatives? It's not unlikely that your wording would have made no difference at all.

Whether or not it's legally discriminatory, I wouldn't know, but if you're filing a human rights complaint without any loss to yourself, that seems worth a try, even if it's a long shot. Emotionally it can often feel better to at least have a go at fighting back against unfair treatment.

From the company website:

https://www.technologynorth.net/process-consulting

We're all about recognizing and valuing every team member as a human being

Well, that's not true in my experience.

we're the experts in working with people with ASD.

Not true.

I was actually roughed up by the Edmonton Police (who this company gets contracts from) over 3 years ago. I was trying to make a traffic complaint and was assaulted. They tried to stop me from getting the CCTV footage but they failed.
https://imgur.com/a/7LRFeCC

I hope that I get a settlement out of this complaint because it would be a form of karma. The payout would come from the company, but in a way it would also be coming from the police - who spend likely 10's of thousands in contracts with this company.

I never have been able to litigate against the police for my experience, so perhaps this human rights complaint for discrimination will be the ultimate vindication.

The key defining point of autism is deficiency, is it not? Not all autistics have the same deficiencies, but certain ones tend to be most prevalent. Social skills, communication, executive functioning, stress management, etc. You personally may not have some of these issues, but it's not an unfair assumption to assume that they may exist. The assumption that you cannot do these things, or that there are certain things you cannot do, may hurt your feelings, but it's still not actually doing you harm - especially if the objective is to provide more support, not less.

It would be one thing if they assumed you couldn't handle your sh!t yourself, and as a result refused to hire you based on that assumption. But in this case, while they may be assuming you may not be able to do something, they are not denying you the opportunity, but rather are providing opportunity for support. Also, reminder - they are not demanding a guardian. A friend or family member is sufficient.

Rather than try to guess the individual needs of every person that comes in the door, they give everyone the same situation, because it's far easier and helpful to start with too much support, and peel it back as needed, than to offer too little support, not supporting people enough, and scrambling to try to guess how much support they do need.

I get that it hurts your self-image, having it assumed that you may not be as capable as you think you are, but I still don't see how it causes HARM. It's not like they're assuming something that's not already associated with autism, literally a known symptom of autism. They're not going "you have autism, therefore you must be lazy" or "you have autism, therefore you must have a fat head" - those things have nothing to do with autism. They're going "you have autism, therefore you may have communication difficulties" - which is a common trait of autism.

Yes yes, if you've met one autistic person, you've met one autistic person. But given that autism has certain defining traits, it's not unfair to assume those traits to be present, or more likely to be present than not.

Seems like people are bad if they expect more from you, cos you have autism and need support of some sort, and it's not fair to hold you to the same standard, but people also bad if they expect too little of you, and don't give you full credit of everything you're capable of - and are supposed to know all of your specific strengths and weaknesses, having never met you before - cos if you've met one autistic person you've met one autistic person, and they're all different so how in the hell is anyone supposed to know which is which and who is who?

Or they could just plan for the most common catch-alls, and maybe some people get support they didn't need, but at least nobody misses out on support they did need.

It's ironic that this complaint is about discrimination, when the root of it seems to be essentially "I may be autistic, but I'm not THAT autistic!" as though it's harmful to be associated with or accommodated for more severe common autistic symptoms, potentially resulting in a minor inconvenience for some, but a lifeline for others, during a first meeting with a total stranger.

Even if you say "I don't need one!", well, lets just bring one along this time anyways, just in case it turns out you do. Most people are not actually very good at determining their own level of skill or aptitude in matters. "I know myself better than anyone else" is not actually a terribly accurate axiom. Plenty of big fish in small lakes think they know the world, having swam from bank to bank, knowing nothing of the oceans and seas and the depths they reach.

FWIW...

I read it as having an implicit "If you have a guardian, then ..." before it.

Surely it would be idiotic for any company - especially one with a record of recruiting ASD folk - to outright demand that all applicants must be accompanied by a guardian, and it's so idiotic I don't believe that's what they're saying.

I just see their concern in ensuring that those who may need representation feel Ok about having their representative present during an interview and that it's therefore important they are present - but no demand that everyone must be accompanied by a guardian.

^
Yes I guess it's your word against theirs if they contradict you. Though most companies record conversations "for training purposes." Not much use if they delete it of course. But they might not, and as you suggest, they might just admit that they did what you say they did.

An afterthough: Is it too late to call them back and get them to clarify that they absolutely insist on you taking a guardian? Could you record that conversation? I don't know if it would be eligible as evidence or not, but if not then you could make a written transcript of it to strengthen your case, adding that it was the second time you'd tried to get them to see sense. And they might even cave in when you call.

Do they understand you do not have a guardian?

It would be a very reasonable policy to require you to bring your guardian if you had one.

Might they think you have a guardian and are trying to do something without their knowledge?

I recommend asking them:

"I was diagnosed as being a High-Functioning Autistic in20B#
but I was never assigned a guardian because I don't need one.
I don't have, have never had, don't need, don't want a guardian.
Do you only hire Low-Functioning Autistics?"

Friendly reminder! Y'all keep focusing on the word "guardian", but the actual text says guardian, family member, friend, or other trusted person. Which is legally permissible in situations such as this.

Just sharing an update:

I filed a human rights compliant on November 11.

I've followed up twice since then and they haven't opened the complaint yet.

Just today I emailed a tv news network about what has happened, so perhaps they'll do this as a story.

I also let the Edmonton Police know what I thought about this because they are partnering with the company.
I found it interesting how the police chief announced he'd be resigning on November 20.