Industrial Tribunal

This is very true,

HR departments particularly in private companies or large multi nationals very rarely put things in writing if it can come back to haunt them. Larger companies often laugh off tribunals as the penalties are often small change to them anyway.

Even small companies will lie and mislead. I would recommend every one with an interest should read the judgement for Holland v A & A coaches and look at the discrimination the driver faced and look at the  compensation he received.

I have had a few meetings with HR regarding wellbeing and reasonable adjustments since my recent Autism assessment and have openly been told they have no intention of implementing any adjustments (always verbally only) but when the fines are compared to the income you could loose and how difficult it is to get an appropriate new job its not worth arguing and potentially putting a target on your back.

Apologies for going off tangent from the original post, 

I was on an interview panel and the Chairman said something like " I hope we get a good male applicant. We can't afford another staff member to go on maternity leave."  It was not an instruction, just a casual comment over coffee. As it happened we had a very good female candidate who got the job. But the message was pretty clear, if two candidates come out equal, pick the man.

Earlier in my career I had a problem when it came to booking annual leave during school holidays. All the mums with kids wanted the school holidays, and because I was a single man without kids they thought I should be the one to give way, even though I had seniority.  I also got more out-of-borough visits, because female colleagues claimed they had to be back in time to collect kids from school. The "family-friendly" policies were discriminating against single men.

Fair enough but it’s not my way. if I found something I felt was so out of line i’d be tempted to make a fuss about it and then dare them to Do something that would end up in an employment tribunal.

Peter said:

I would have tried to get something in writing and then take it to the EHRC

Disobeying a direct order like that (even one told off the record) would be the end of my career in that company and stop me getting a good reference.

Yes that would be wrong, but the whole management structure does this to degrees. It isn't done routinely which is a blessing and one could argue that the positive discrimination could be a good thing even if it is against employment law.

I was just highlighting how it works from the other side of the table to the OP, not making a judgement on it.

You must like your boss or your job far more than me then. I would have tried to get something in writing and then take it to the EHRC. Or just hire the best candidate and when they complain point out that there was nothing in writing saying it had to be a girl.

It can be really hard to prove the discrimination and employers often go to some lengths to make sure you cannot.

I vividly recall when I had to recruit a new member for my team after one resigned, I was told to make sure I hired a female as the team was 80% male and the higher management though the team needed more diversity.

This meant I had to tell the recruiters to make sure I got both male and female candidates for a role that has 99% male applicants normally - then when selecting candidates for interviews I had to be careful in the reasonings I used for selecting candidates.

Then the worst part for me was seeing one after another or very capable male candidates interview knowing that I couldn't hire them and instead select one of a much less suitable batch of female candidates.

I did get regular reminders from my boss that I must not put anything in writing pointing out that I only wanted a female hire at the end of the day.

This example was a sexual discrimination against males rather than against autists but the principle remains that if the company do not want a particular profile then they will normally keep it silent and hidden.

This is a fairly widespread practice in my experience.

I mean employment tribunals are not popularity contests, it’s not going to have any effect on the outcome what we say.

as a lay person with an interest in equality law. Another strict understanding that this is not to be taken as legal advice. My understanding is that not being able to bring a case in a timely fashion, because of circumstances beyond your control, is one of the few cases when courts will generally allow cases in brought out of time. At the end of the day though bringing a case out of time is generally at the courts discretion. So it’s usually hard to challenge in either direction once the court made up its mind.

I have absolutely no idea how that will work in an employment tribunal though. Given the age of this post I doubt OP is still watching it. But if they are I’m curious to know what the outcome was.

I guess it depends on the job. I can see that for, say, a job in sales or customer service the ability to answer "on the hoof" may be a requirement for the job in a way that it would not be for a storekeeper or administrative person in a back office.

One of the best jobs I ever had (of the few I ever got) involved an interview process in which candidates were given 15 mins with pen and paper and *the interview questions* before the interview.  I hadn't even declared the AS (didn't actually have a diagnosis at that point).  But oh, it helped so much.  Usually I mess up interviews, this one went so well and resulted in a job.  Two terms worth of part-time work, but I was good at it and it led to other things for a while.

I've considered making that a request, since the diagnosis, but my experience of declaring AS has mostly been negative, and employers aren't keen on being told how to interview.  Also, my experience with employment tribunals has been largely negative.  Good luck, in the current climate, with yours.

I guess 'Yes' would be my response, something has to be done to at least register that there is something wrong.

Trouble is, getting your rights is very difficult and most people are deterred from trying. That in turn makes it easy for employers to ignore disability rights. They know that if their smart lawyers put up enough complication most people will back down.

But for that reason your situation and prospects don't sound great.

Was it the employer who delayed the Data Protection Act information requests? If you can demonstrate that, with evidence, at the tribunal, that ought to put them on the spot. If they then claim you ran out of time because they deliberately held things up that cannot look good.

Trouble is we have a Government in control that thinks filibustering is democracy (forcing a bill before parliament out of time by making long pointless speeches). With that kind of Government what chance has anyone of obtaining justice?

It sounds like they've used something similar to filibustering, preventing you from getting the information you needed before you could present your case within the deadline, and then using that to oppose you. That just sums up the state of this country at the moment.