Yeah that's true but if other employees who are not so open-minded see I have High-Functioning Autism and start making awful comments I don't know how I'd deal with it especially if Human Resources takes no interest/doesn't care.
Serious question:
What would be your reaction be if other employees (who are not so open minded)
do not see that you have high functioning autism but only notice that you're sort of "different" and start hazing you because of it and Human Resources doesn't care? And that starts to interfere with your ability to do your job?
Or, perhaps more realistically, if the coworkers lack the balls to make those comments to your face but simply criticize you behind your back and make things hard for you and give you more work and less support than others and ignore you and/or give you a hard time in a less obvious kind of way? Or they form a clique with you on the outside and that clique wields a political power and "pull" with management that you simply can't stand up to alone?
What would your reaction be if coworkers did this, not because you had autism per se (which the coworkers don't even really know) but simply as a political maneuver against someone who's different and vulnerable, in a sort of nondescript way?
Here, in the states, discriminating against someone because of autism would be illegal, but just bullying them and being jerks
on general principal... is not. Even when it's blatant, and even when the management does it. Even when it's for no good reason. Even if someone lost their job because of it. And, while I agree it's unfair, you can't make people be perfectly nice to someone. Or perfectly fair.
I've run into a number of these situations at work, and I'm genuinely perplexed as to what to do. I could complain about "discrimination", but I imagine that would be very difficult to prove and even harder to prove in a case where the people involved didn't even know that I had autism. (
Does the word "discrimination" even still apply in cases where people are being "mean" to you because you're different but they don't know that that difference is because of a protected class?) And still harder in a case where
I'm not even sure that I have autism. Assuming I could even find a lawyer to take my case when it would probably cost more to prosecute the case than the settlement would be if I won.
Does "reasonable accomodation" (at work) include mandated social tolerance for someone who is a little bit different: not in a way that affects their ability to do their job, but strictly in a social capacity? And, if so, does this mandated tolerance extend to people who are different but do not have a specific "disability"? (For the less intelligent, the less skilled, the less attractive for example: unfair conditions which people are also 'born with"?) What, exactly, is the difference between forbidding discrimination against a vulnerable class (which I tend think is a good idea) and forbidding politics and/or power dynamics at all (which may be a bad and is almost certainly unenforceable)?
Where, exactly, do you draw the line between "this is an unacceptable way to treat someone because of some stupid, arbitrary difference"...and... "mean people happen, and life's unfair for
everyone"? As much as I hate it, I'm tempted to believe the latter.
In a way, I almost envy the guy in the article. As unpleasant as discrimination is, at least he
knows that he's being discriminated against, and knows
why, for sure. I have to think that, as bad as his situation is, that that fact must be some small comfort, as opposed to not knowing.
