• Replies 7 replies
  • Subscribers 82 subscribers
  • Views 1452 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

Automatic disability status

NAS79464

Hi guys, I sent this to an MP yesterday to try and get change for ASD people to have their disability recognised.  It said:

Hi, you're not my local MP.  However, I'm contacting you as you are the chair of APPG on autism.  I would to suggest a change to equality act 2010 in terms of conditions that automatically qualify as a disability.  I believe ASD should be included in this list (where it has been diagnosed under DSM 5).
I'm currently in the process of ongoing employment tribunal proceedings against my previous employer.  They have not conceeded my disability.  They don't feel that I'm impacted significantly on daily activities to meet the threshold of the legal definition.  My argument is that I do by default.  Here's why.  
In my ASD diagnostic report, it says:
"The concerns identified show features consistent with an autism spectrum disorder and show evidence of significantly impacting Dean's everyday functioning. This is consistent with criterion D of DSM 5."
In order for a diagnosis to be made, it has to fit the diagnostic criteria.  It has done and as was said, it fits criterion D of DSM 5. Section D is particularly important as it says:
"Do the symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning?"   
The clinical psychologist ruled that it has significant impact, therefore it meets the substantial part of the legal definition of disability.  The other two elements are covered, it's a mental impairment and it is long term as ASD is life long.  In fact anyone with a diagnosis of ASD under DSM 5 automatically meets the legal definition of disability criteria.  Do you agree with this and if so, would you aid me in having it be considered in parliament as a change to equality act 2010 for ASD to be added to the list of conditions that are automatically given disability status.  Many thanks.  
What do you think on this matter?
Parents

  • Autism being a disability is a contention thing, ask a whole load of autistic people if they consider themselves disabled and you will be a mixed response, I've seen arguments for and against from autistic people on Twitter about this.

    As autism is varied it may not feel disabling to some, or they may just consider themselves different, neurodiverse.

    I understand your point of view as you going through a tribunal, but there could be negative consequences if autistic people are always classed as legally disabled.  Would that mean too disabled to work?  Employers wouldn't take on autistic people, of if they did make find other reasons/ways to sack them to avoid a tribunal.  It might also mean people avoid seeking a diagnosis in case it limits their future potential to work, or other things.

    For me, I think its a personal judgement if you want to class yourself as disabled, and that might be a better approach - some way for people to legally register as disabled providing they have a diagnosis report and any other evidence that backs that up.

    If you don't mind me asking, what the grounds for your dismissal?

  • in reply to Autimator

    Of course autistic people can choose if they feel their autism to be disabling. However what I'm trying to do is prove to my employer that on a technical basis my autism does meet the legal definition by default because of reasons mentioned on the original post and I'm also saying that all autistic people meet the definition as well, regardless of if they feel they're disabled or not. So it's already true that a diagnosis of ASD under DSM 5 meets the legal definition, this is factual rather than subjective. I just want to get it added to the list of conditions that automatically qualify in the equality act legislation. It will help people when they need it and it shouldn't go against anyone. Employers should be equal opportunities and do take on disabled people all the time.

    I wasn't dismissed. I was harassed for years by my supervisor and in April last year, he was filmed committing discriminatory gesture and comment about me. I took voluntary redundancy as a form of resignation. I was forced to do this because I could not return to work and now I'm not capable of working. I'm saying to the tribunal that I wont be present for the 6 day tribunal in person or over the phone because it would be distressing and that therefore, the cross examination questions need to be provided in advance in writing. They need to agree that I'm disabled for this to be put in place and they're digging their heels in on their position that I'm not.

    My employer knew in october 2018 of my ASD diagnosis.  My supervisor then became worse with me.

  • in reply to NAS79464

    I see, so really its a flaw in the tribunal system that is the issue, you need to be 'too disabled' to attend and defend yourself.  Kind of discrimination itself that.  I understand that its legal thing and they really want you there, but I don't see the need to attend for cross examination that for vulnerable people might actually weaken or confuse either deliberately or because of stress/anxiety or lack of confidence.

    You probably can't right now for legal reasons, but you might want to reach out to the NAS and perhaps the media about this to get more awareness of it.

    I had to hear the harsh mocking (from senior staff) of an ex-employee who was taking the employer to a tribunal, I thought that was incredibly unprofessional, it might have to been a dubious claim to them but if so then they have nothing to worry about so just deal with it properly.

Reply
  • in reply to NAS79464

    I see, so really its a flaw in the tribunal system that is the issue, you need to be 'too disabled' to attend and defend yourself.  Kind of discrimination itself that.  I understand that its legal thing and they really want you there, but I don't see the need to attend for cross examination that for vulnerable people might actually weaken or confuse either deliberately or because of stress/anxiety or lack of confidence.

    You probably can't right now for legal reasons, but you might want to reach out to the NAS and perhaps the media about this to get more awareness of it.

    I had to hear the harsh mocking (from senior staff) of an ex-employee who was taking the employer to a tribunal, I thought that was incredibly unprofessional, it might have to been a dubious claim to them but if so then they have nothing to worry about so just deal with it properly.

Children
No Data