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.

Frankly, I wasn't that excited about the job. It's boring, tedious work. But I still applied because I have no current employment. The fact is they through their company policy have made it more difficult for someone like me
on the spectrum to work with them.

At this point all I'm really interested in is if I obtain a settlement. I don't really hold ill will towards the company, but I don't agree with how they hire.

If the human rights complaint is denied, I have one chance to appeal. In the event it is denied I may contact legal counsel.

Yes, the general idea when avoiding discriminatory hiring practices is to avoid treating people differently and especially when it comes to protected characteristics. The equality act of 2010 in the UK at least, requires employers to respect the equal rights of all different groups/individuals and to not discriminate against any group or individual, particularly those who have protected characteristics.

Treating autistic people differently during hiring processes, would be discrimination on the grounds of disability, since autism is legally, generally regarded as a disability.



Yes, that would be justifiable discrimination and justifiable discrimination is legal if the discrimination can be proved to be for good reason and necessary for the function of a business.



Yes that would be discriminatory against NTs, but being an NT isn't a protected characteristic, since this group is not a minority/not at a disadvantage, in general, unless they have a physical disability or a mental health disability unrelated to being non-NT. In this example specifically, autistic people, a minority, are being given preferential treatment, which would be an example of positive discrimination. Positive discrimination can be unlawful in certain circumstances.



The best way for any business to be autistic friendly is to advertise that that is what they want to be, and to take any individual case of autism on its own merits, and to accommodate each or any autistic persons needs accordingly. The wrong way to go about trying to be an autistic friendly employer, would be to employ blanket rules such as requiring a guardian to attend an interview with the autistic interviewee, which is problematic on many levels and in this case could be deemed to be unlawful if someone were to legally 'explore' this instance.



It is crazy, yes, to make hard rules for autistic people as a group with regard to hiring processes. As the saying goes, "when you have met one person with autism, you have met one person with autism."



I am aware of this.



I personally don't find it okay for a business to make harmful implications about autistic people and their abilities in general. It wouldn't be acceptable to make generalized judgements about what black people or gay people are capable of in the workplace, or to judge that they need a guardian with them at an interview for a job, as an adult who is planning on turning in for work on a recurrent basis, presumably without a guardian to help them perform the job.

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.