Do you need to have informed your employer of your disability (UK)

[dragoncat16]

If someone is harassed/discriminated at work on the basis of "poor people skills" or something similar, and has later (within a few months) been diagnosed with Aspergers, is the harassment/discrimination still considered unlawful? Would the condition have had to be diagnosed and disclosed beforehand? Would it have had to be disclosed to the specific person/people who did the harassing or only to the employer?

Is the claim of an employee having "poor people skills" (or several other similar phrases) enough for the employer to have realised that the person possibly had undiagnosed AS/ASD? This is a large employer with thousands of employees, not a small firm. Were they required by law to have preventative measures and rules in place to prevent this kind of mistreatment?

With all the bullying that goes on in the UK, I am very surprised that one is protected from it only if they have a protected characteristic, and otherwise, they can be treated any way at all and apparently also dismissed at will.

If the employer has refused to take action and has, in fact, dimissed the employee that has been mistreated after that employee complained about the harassment, is that considered victimisation, even though there were supposedly all sorts of reasons over the long term (mostly associated with the "poor people skills") for dismissing the person, which were incidentally not disclosed to the employee at performance reviews, etc.?

All the examples in the publications put out by e.g. ACAS seem to have the employee first disclosing the disability to the employer, and then the employer's actions after that disclosure are brought into question, and the employer has to specifically say the decisions are based on the disability in order for it to be unlawful. What are the requirements for a reasonable expectation that an employer would have been aware of a disability before the disclosure? Are phrases such as "poor people skills" (and many others) thrown around in emails from colleagues and the Line Manager, enough, or does the specific condition (AS or whatever) have to be mentioned and attached to any harassing behaviour by colleagues or discriminatory decisions made by the employer?

In this case, I refer to emails, video recordings, and other provable events and actions, even perpretrated by the Line Manager, who had a cute name for any encounter another colleague had with the individual with AS, and falsified performance reports, etc. to make the employee with AS look bad when considered for future employment, which was subsequently denied to that person. But, nobody ever mentioned AS, just referred to problems with the victim's social interactions as a black mark against that person and a reason to ridicule and shun that person in meetings, in front of clients (in this case, students), and in front of other colleagues to completely destroy that person's reputation.

Does anyone know about this from a legal standpoint or have any personal experience in this from tribunals, etc.?

Thanks.

 

[Mr Allen]

In the UK, it's personal choice whether to disclose your disability during the application process, for some jobs it's beneficial (allegedly Tesco do "guaranteed interviews" for disabled applicants) and some local Councils do the "2 ticks" thing which also allegedly guarantees interviews, Falsehood! I've applied to Tesco recently and failed, and a few years back I applied to Sheffield City Council to be a Lollipop Man, and they said I didn't declare my disability, IMO I did.

But enough of my rants, if you're like me and too honest for your own good, you'll declare it every time, which like I said can be a good thing, but for some jobs it's wise to not say anything unless you absolutely have to IMO, especially if you're Aspie, as not many people outside of the Medical profession and other people who need to know, have heard of it.

As for it being unlawful to discriminate, you're correct, it is, but it still happens!

 

[Streetwise]

If someone is harassed/discriminated at work on the basis of "poor people skills" or something similar, and has later (within a few months) been diagnosed with Aspergers, is the harassment/discrimination still considered unlawful? Would the condition have had to be diagnosed and disclosed beforehand? Would it have had to be disclosed to the specific person/people who did the harassing or only to the employer?

Is the claim of an employee having "poor people skills" (or several other similar phrases) enough for the employer to have realised that the person possibly had undiagnosed AS/ASD? This is a large employer with thousands of employees, not a small firm. Were they required by law to have preventative measures and rules in place to prevent this kind of mistreatment?

With all the bullying that goes on in the UK, I am very surprised that one is protected from it only if they have a protected characteristic, and otherwise, they can be treated any way at all and apparently also dismissed at will.

If the employer has refused to take action and has, in fact, dimissed the employee that has been mistreated after that employee complained about the harassment, is that considered victimisation, even though there were supposedly all sorts of reasons over the long term (mostly associated with the "poor people skills") for dismissing the person, which were incidentally not disclosed to the employee at performance reviews, etc.?

All the examples in the publications put out by e.g. ACAS seem to have the employee first disclosing the disability to the employer, and then the employer's actions after that disclosure are brought into question, and the employer has to specifically say the decisions are based on the disability in order for it to be unlawful. What are the requirements for a reasonable expectation that an employer would have been aware of a disability before the disclosure? Are phrases such as "poor people skills" (and many others) thrown around in emails from colleagues and the Line Manager, enough, or does the specific condition (AS or whatever) have to be mentioned and attached to any harassing behaviour by colleagues or discriminatory decisions made by the employer?

In this case, I refer to emails, video recordings, and other provable events and actions, even perpretrated by the Line Manager, who had a cute name for any encounter another colleague had with the individual with AS, and falsified performance reports, etc. to make the employee with AS look bad when considered for future employment, which was subsequently denied to that person. But, nobody ever mentioned AS, just referred to problems with the victim's social interactions as a black mark against that person and a reason to ridicule and shun that person in meetings, in front of clients (in this case, students), and in front of other colleagues to completely destroy that person's reputation.

Does anyone know about this from a legal standpoint or have any personal experience in this from tribunals, etc.?

Thanks.

They employers are sly enough to never admit your dismissal was because of an illegal reason i.e pregnancy, female ,disability ,religion ,class
They care about no1!

 

[Streetwise]

If someone is harassed/discriminated at work on the basis of "poor people skills" or something similar, and has later (within a few months) been diagnosed with Aspergers, is the harassment/discrimination still considered unlawful? Would the condition have had to be diagnosed and disclosed beforehand? Would it have had to be disclosed to the specific person/people who did the harassing or only to the employer?

Is the claim of an employee having "poor people skills" (or several other similar phrases) enough for the employer to have realised that the person possibly had undiagnosed AS/ASD? This is a large employer with thousands of employees, not a small firm. Were they required by law to have preventative measures and rules in place to prevent this kind of mistreatment?

With all the bullying that goes on in the UK, I am very surprised that one is protected from it only if they have a protected characteristic, and otherwise, they can be treated any way at all and apparently also dismissed at will.

If the employer has refused to take action and has, in fact, dimissed the employee that has been mistreated after that employee complained about the harassment, is that considered victimisation, even though there were supposedly all sorts of reasons over the long term (mostly associated with the "poor people skills") for dismissing the person, which were incidentally not disclosed to the employee at performance reviews, etc.?

All the examples in the publications put out by e.g. ACAS seem to have the employee first disclosing the disability to the employer, and then the employer's actions after that disclosure are brought into question, and the employer has to specifically say the decisions are based on the disability in order for it to be unlawful. What are the requirements for a reasonable expectation that an employer would have been aware of a disability before the disclosure? Are phrases such as "poor people skills" (and many others) thrown around in emails from colleagues and the Line Manager, enough, or does the specific condition (AS or whatever) have to be mentioned and attached to any harassing behaviour by colleagues or discriminatory decisions made by the employer?

In this case, I refer to emails, video recordings, and other provable events and actions, even perpretrated by the Line Manager, who had a cute name for any encounter another colleague had with the individual with AS, and falsified performance reports, etc. to make the employee with AS look bad when considered for future employment, which was subsequently denied to that person. But, nobody ever mentioned AS, just referred to problems with the victim's social interactions as a black mark against that person and a reason to ridicule and shun that person in meetings, in front of clients (in this case, students), and in front of other colleagues to completely destroy that person's reputation.

Does anyone know about this from a legal standpoint or have any personal experience in this from tribunals, etc.?

Thanks.

If you go to the office switch on voice record on your phone !or if it's not a feature buy a voice recorder! take it with you and record conversations !they will have evidence be as sly

 

[dragoncat16]

If you go to the office switch on voice record on your phone !or if it's not a feature buy a voice recorder! take it with you and record conversations !they will have evidence be as sly

Oh yes I have some recordings of meetings with my Line Manager. I started recording the meetings when it was clear something was going on. My LM is clearly heard on a recording telling me privately not to do some particular tasks until after a meeting a few days later. At that meeting, my LM and another colleague totally humiliated me in front of the other people at the meeting, blaming me because those same tasks (the ones I was told not to do) had not been done. My LM later crticised the behaviour I showed at that meeting (I was quite upset at the time about the fact that I had been set up but I managed to keep my cool, for which I should have received some sort of medal).

Nobody mentioned AS though so is that ok? The reasons that were given for my poor reviews included being unpopular with students (which wasn't helped by a colleague telling students at the beginning of the semester that I'm basically incompetent - oh yeah and that was recorded too). One investigation that has been done concluded that this colleague had acted wrongly but that I'm still a terrible teacher, even though if you don't count the ratings from students not supervised by this colleague, my overall ratings are actually ok. The way they determined that was by looking at the terrible ratings from those students and saying that I am a terrible teacher, and then deciding not to disregard the ratings from those students, when the video of my colleague badmouthing me to students was shown to them, because it had already been concluded that I am a terrible teacher so those reviews shouldn't be disregarded. No logic at all...

So basically I'm screwed here? I mean who is going to be stupid enough to say "you have AS so you're being fired". Why is it ok for them to treat me badly because of aspects related to my disability, and it's clearly because of that, but just because they don't specifically say it's because of my AS, I have no recourse? Why do they even have these laws if they are only applicable in a small fraction of real discrimination cases (the ones where someone is stupid enough to tell someone - in writing or on a recording, no less - that the mistreatment is specifically because of a protected characteristic) ?

Arrgh....

 

[Keigan]

You need to seek a law firm that specializes in work place discrimination for the country.

 

[Datura]

I have no knowledge in this area, but agree that your treatment sounds unjust. I think you should consult with a solicitor.

 

[Sid Delicious]

I know everyone will have a different opinion on whether to declare autism to an employer, but I've found it better not to. I just apply for roles that I know I can do and generally don't say anything about having autism unless asked directly (which rarely happens). That means avoiding anything with lots of phone calls, face-to-face client work, multi-tasking (admin is a no go), etc. I think certain fields such as IT and engineering tend to attract people with 'aspie' personalities (whether diagnosed or not), so having brilliant people skills isn't a top requirement. I think if you feel you have declare it then perhaps the job isn't the right fit for you and the employer might consider this when hiring for the role.

However, I would say there is a responsibility on the employer's part to check in advance that a candidate has the correct abilities for the role (including strong people skills, if that is important). So unless you are incredibly good at hiding your autistic traits, then they should have picked up on these faults during the hiring process. They seem to have failed to do this in your case. A small firm could be forgiven for missing it, but a very large company like you have described will have a dedicated HR team and interview/onboarding process who's job it is to highlight potential issues in advance (whether or not the candidate has an autism diagnosis). I'm not sure what to advise in your situation, although from what you have said your employer is using pretty underhand tactics to get rid of you.

 

[dragoncat16]

@Sid Delicious
I think you have misunderstood. I did and do have more than the correct abilities for the role. I encountered trouble only when some of my colleagues decided to make things difficult for me by bullying and harassing me. The employer was correct in the assessment that I was the best candidate for the job in the first place. The purported "performance problems" arose because one of my colleagues was sabotaging me, not because my actual performance was lacking.

The reason I asked about disclosing the ASD to an employer was because now my employer can possibly say that the reprehensible treatment I suffered was ok because they were not aware of my protected characteristic, and of course regular bullying in the workplace is perfectly legal in the UK.

I appreciate your reply but I think you are way off the mark by saying that we should be limited in our employment prospects just because of our condition. Since I started at university my natural goal has been to eventually become a professor. There are many people on the spectrum who hold such positions at the best universities all over the world, especially in my particular field of study. Why should my dreams be crushed just because I don't give the proper amount of eye contact or whatever? Nearly every student I have personally supervised has been extremely happy with my guidance and my willingness to be their unswaying advocate as they move through their education and into their careers. I can see why certain disabilities could stop some people from following certain career paths, but this is not the same thing at all. I am just as capable as any NT at excelling in academia, and my grades and awards over my career prove it.

 

[Sid Delicious]

Apologies, I misunderstood your post. That is definitely unfair of your colleagues and something you should highlight to whoever is managing this (if you haven't already). I'm not sure if disclosing your diagnosis will make a difference at this point, but the behaviour of your colleague should be brought to the attention of management. If your students are getting good grades and are happy with your performance, then as an employer I would want to retain high achieving staff. Financially, it makes no sense to get rid of someone that is performing well.

I didn't mean to suggest there should only be certain careers for those with autism. I may (probably) have explained that badly. I meant that certain roles will naturally be much harder and more stressful for people who lack certain skills due to autism - sales, as one example, where very strong people skills are required - and any employer hiring for such a role should be checking if a candidate has this.

 

[dragoncat16]

Thanks again for your reply. I don't want to seem as if I am cutting down everything you say, or are taking offense, because that is not the case.

It's actually too late for me. I am already out of there. The employer has been informed of exactly what happened and decided to do nothing, because it was easier to get rid of me than to actually deal with what happened. My concern is whether the employer can be held legally responsible for what was done to me.

It's funny that you mention sales as something people on the spectrum wouldn't be good at. While I wouldn't ever want to be a salesperson as a career, I did work in a store for a while, and I did make quite a few sales (that perhaps my other colleagues would not have done) because of my extensive knowledge of the products. Because I was in contact with strangers and not people I knew and would see again, it was not as stressful to have to deal with them, because I guess I knew that any faux pas would not be held against me forever. You don't need perfect social skills to sell things, just be respectful and honest and know enough to be able to give accurate information and answer questions. I would far prefer to buy a car, say, from someone on the spectrum with a reserved demeanour, respectful attitude, and a vast knowledge of what they are selling, than from an in-your-face salesperson with way too much self confidence and too many high pressure sales tactics for their own good. I'm sure some NTs run away from those latter types very fast. I sure do, anyway.

I actually cannot think of any career a person on the spectrum couldn't do very well (depending on the person, of course). I have never failed at anything I have really put my mind to, unless someone else has sabotaged me on purpose. The way others treat me is my only "disability".

 

[Sid Delicious]

"Thanks again for your reply. I don't want to seem as if I am cutting down everything you say, or are taking offense, because that is not the case."

No, you were right to. I rushed through your post before going out and totally misread it. It's all good!

I'm sorry to hear it hasn't worked out. Work can be pretty cut throat at times. I've been in similar environments in the city (although not directed at me personally) and it's not a good way to encourage productivity if everyone is constantly looking over their shoulder waiting for another employee to back stab them. Toxic workplace cultures, if left unchecked, tend to haemorrhage all the productive staff and result in decreased business performance in the long run. I hope you move on to better things. I'm not sure about the legal aspect of it, although it is worth checking up on.

I had a go at sales early on in my work life and crashed and burned spectacularly, so perhaps I am biased. We were expected to lie, flirt, coerce and do whatever we could to hit targets. It was also constant phone calls, multi tasking and admin, which pretty much combines every major weak spot I have. I bow down to your superior abilities!

 

[Kevin L.]

Was referred to ARC by this forum re: employment issues, but got a bad taste in my mouth and am very bitter.

In order to accommodate my Asperger's, they are talking about putting my in a position where I would be isolated from everyone.

In short, I would be segregated so I won't get sabbotaged by my coworkers.

It reminds me of two classic Twilight Zone episodes. In "Eye of the Beholder", a woman is in the hospital, swathed in bandages, and we never see the doctors or nurses.

When the bandages are removed, she is a stunningly beautiful woman and all the doctors look like pigs. She is segregated at a ghetto with people like her who can't be cured of their hideous birth defects.

I feel the same way. I have to be hidden and shut away because of my slight differences...an embarrassment and a secret to the company that hires me.

All the while, arranging me to be segregated is them "doing me a favor" and "helping me" by "accomodating my disabilities".

The other Twilight Zone episode was "Number 12 Looks Just Like Me". A young girl is resisting surgery to make her like everyone else.

Surely the answer to autism on the job isn't to shut me away and forbid people to talk to me, is it?

 

[Mr Allen]

I had a group based interview last Thursday tea time at Grainger Games in Town, I emailed their Head Office ages ago when I saw the vacancy in the Shop window and they never even acknowledged my email so I kind of dismissed it, then last Wednesday I had a missed call on the mobile while it was on charge, inviting me to this interview on the Thursday.

Anyway, I hate group based interviews but I tried, next day I received a call saying I'd been unsuccessful, apparently there were "better candidates" on the night, although I strongly suspect I was rejected because I declared my Asperger's and the fact I'm on Employment Support Allowance and thus, can only work limited hours, and the Manager told me on the night that that was "fine", so IMO I have a case for discrimination because it turns out the limited hours issue was NOT "fine" as I was told.

And this is an ongoing problem, as it's Christmas temp season in all the big Shops from this month, so the fact I can only work up to 15 hours a week makes it pretty much a waste of time applying to anything except Charity Shops, been there done that and literally worn the flipping T shirt in some cases.

 

[Kevin L.]

Wanted to update on this thread.

Got a good job from VOC Rehab, and arranged for me to have a medical position, and will see if it works out. Pay and benefits are good.