Opinions on the current legal support for requesting workplace or educational accomodations

[royinpink]

So, my boyfriend is studying law, and he is writing about the current protections for people with ASD, ADHD, learning disorders, or other neurological conditions under the U.N.'s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. According to the Convention, "Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others." Notably, this does not include social communication impairments, part of the criteria for autism.

The idea is to write from the perspective of neurodiversity, arguing that the protections were created with physical disabilities in mind, and therefore the kind of accommodations that can be requested under the convention are not sufficient to bridge the gap and successfully integrate neurodivergent people into the workplace. Currently, accomodations are envisioned as stepping stones to a shared goal or expectation, not a shift in workplace culture.

He is running into a lack of resources pertinent to his argument--neurodiversity just doesn't get mentioned much in the legal literature, apparently. So I thought I'd make a post.

Does anyone have opinions on this? Experiences that are relevant? Ideas about what a better approach to accommodation would look like? (aside from Specialsterne and Microsoft's pilot program) Articles or research that you can link to?

ETA: Maybe this helps clarify the legal perspective for people:

Basically, there are two main areas that employers, schools, and the government have to consider. Accessibility refers to making your workplace/school/public facilities accessible to disabled people in the first place. Accommodations are changes you make to suit disabled people you've already employed/admitted.

The U.N. CRPD is the document that lays out everything countries have to make laws about to integrate disabled people and as much as possible, help them become independent, productive members of society. The goal is "promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity."

So anything that shows that the current accommodations or accessibility under the law aren't actually protecting equal enjoyment of human rights is a challenge to the CRPD.

 

[Maelstrom]

So, my boyfriend is studying law, and he is writing about the current protections for people with ASD, ADHD, learning disorders, or other neurological conditions under the U.N.'s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. According to the Convention, "Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others." Notably, this does not include social communication impairments, part of the criteria for autism.

The idea is to write from the perspective of neurodiversity, arguing that the protections were created with physical disabilities in mind, and therefore the kind of accommodations that can be requested under the convention are not sufficient to bridge the gap and successfully integrate neurodivergent people into the workplace. Currently, accomodations are envisioned as stepping stones to a shared goal or expectation, not a shift in workplace culture.

He is running into a lack of resources pertinent to his argument--neurodiversity just doesn't get mentioned much in the legal literature, apparently. So I thought I'd make a post.

Does anyone have opinions on this? Experiences that are relevant? Ideas about what a better approach to accommodation would look like? (aside from Specialsterne and Microsoft's pilot program) Articles or research that you can link to?

Hi Royinpink hope you are doing better now...the flaw with that law is all the symptoms of auti overload, shutdown, aspie blank face, OCD etcetera do overlap the social job performance thing. So if a employer wants to nuke you all they have to do is claim they are coming at you from the socially poor job performance side. Sorry hope I don't offend, am playing the devils advocate here...my point being, I'm not sure you get the protection needed, (which would be nice), and still separate the social from the physical. Best wishes Mael

 

[royinpink]

Hi Royinpink hope you are doing better now...the flaw with that law is all the symptoms of auti overload, shutdown, aspie blank face, OCD etcetera do overlap the social job performance thing. So if a employer wants to nuke you all they have to do is claim they are coming at you from the socially poor job performance side. Sorry hope I don't offend, am playing the devils advocate here...my point being, I'm not sure you get the protection needed, (which would be nice), and still separate the social from the physical. Best wishes Mael

Yeah, that's been my impression, that social skills still present the main obstacle in a number of ways. Of course some autistics can succeed where there's a nice compromise between an employer who makes the effort to understand them and values the work they do, and an autist who knows how to self-advocate and is aware of their needs.

But for a lot of people on the spectrum, that's still insanely difficult, and even for those who have mastered the skills needed to maintain employment, if they happen to be unlucky with an employer who is less understanding, things could go south quickly.

Thanks for mentioning some of the other symptoms (overload, shutdown, OCD)...might be useful.

ETA: Oh, and thanks for your concern. I'm surviving. Looking for a job that doesn't kill me this time! Glad to see you back, too!

 

[Judge]

He is running into a lack of resources pertinent to his argument--neurodiversity just doesn't get mentioned much in the legal literature, apparently. So I thought I'd make a post.

Does anyone have opinions on this?

Whew...that's a complex subject just to fire off a paragraph or two. Hat's off to the b/f who is willing to research this under the present circumstances.

I just see neurodiversity as needed to be much more tightly defined by science and medicine before law can effectively intervene to benefit those who truly need assistance.

Unfortunately anything that creates the potential for more beneficiaries is likely to be met with considerable fiscal and political resistance. Which I suspect at times may materialize into that "lack of resources" by design.

 

[royinpink]

I just see neurodiversity as needed to be much more tightly defined by science and medicine before law can effectively intervene to benefit those who truly need assistance.

Agreed. He's having to avoid anything that might require, say, critiquing the DSM. But the upside of it being an academic paper is he's free to be a bit more idealistic and ahead of the times.

I must say I thought it was sweet when he said he was researching this. But I think it actually helps him find motivation when it's something that affects those close to him. Watching him struggle to write, I made him take an ADHD test. Maybe I'm not the only one of us who isn't neurotypical...

 

[Judge]

Agreed. He's having to avoid anything that might require, say, critiquing the DSM. But the upside of it being an academic paper is he's free to be a bit more idealistic and ahead of the times.

It's a frustrating dynamic to me. Thumbs up to the DSM-V for citing Aspergers to be a spectrum of autistic traits and behaviors. It makes sense. However thumbs down, in the sense that in doing so this distinction seems to have transformed Aspergers Syndrome into something far more nebulous- even subjective. Ultimately making diagnosis more difficult.

This is what is at the heart of why I say science must be proactive first before law. That somehow they've got to improve upon this dynamic with far more clarity. Of course this is all merely my non-professional opinion...

 

[Maelstrom]

[QUOTE="royinpink, Thanks for mentioning some of the other symptoms (overload, shutdown, OCD)...might be useful.[/QUOTE]

Hi Royinpink Of course the one thing people forget about autism is it is the, (Un-Familiar), that triggers overload and shut down. Once we become familiar with a job we can become superior workers, I worked for a furniture factory once, I wasn't the most popular person there, but I saved them a fair amount of money by showing them how to change their assembly line and properly package their products. They had no clue just ramming stuff into boxes, and giving the buyers no options on colors. The same applies to relations somewhat, the more I know people the more I can anticipate them.... no overload.

I'm glad you are doing well best wishes Mael

 

[royinpink]

This is what is at the heart of why I say science must be proactive first before law. That somehow they've got to improve upon this dynamic with far more clarity. Of course this is all merely my non-professional opinion...

Well...he's looking at it from the perspective of neurodiversity--that neurological conditions represent natural variation, difference from the norm, not defects. So he's trying to argue against the medical model, just like people argued that homosexuality is not a mental illness. And that is where there is a lack of resources. Science could help with that argument, but it is more of a civil rights movement.

As for why the current model of disability cannot actually integrate neurologically divergent people, he's got a lot. We spent a lot of time sussing out how the social model of disability almost-doesn't-quite work because it's conceived of for physical disability. Yes, the problem is a mismatch between society and the person with the disability, and if society changes, the 'disability' disappears, but when the mismatch is of a social nature...that mismatch is more systemic, to do with the expectations, rules, and values at play.

For example, the social model of disability for the blind person says that for them to read, for instance, we teach them Braille and change the text to Braille. The blind person just needs to be able to access the information in a way that makes sense to them, and both people share expectations of what 'success' is, what desired behavior is, what information exchange consists in. Autistic individuals often have an entirely different approach to work. Maybe you write down the information to help with auditory processing deficits, but you aren't helping them get past the interview, or change the obsessive, one-track approach to work. There's a core difference in the expectations and values and processing of the people involved, and thus the disability doesn't just 'disappear' when society makes an accomodation. (Tony Attwood has commented that it disappears when you have an aspie in a room alone, though--without society altogether ). It's a difference that is closely tied to identity, which is why people prefer 'aspie' or 'autistic' or whatever to 'person with autism'.

The problem for his paper I guess is that arguing for equality of neurologically atypical individuals is a separate argument from arguing that the CRPD doesn't protect their human rights, and without the former, it's really hard to argue the latter.

 

[royinpink]

Just an update: he got an 'A' on the paper (and we both learned a lot about neurodiversity and disability rights in the process) and is thinking about reworking it for publication (he graduates soon).

 

[SocOfAutism]

I know he's done with this, so maybe no longer interested. I would have argued that differences in social skills counts as sensory impairments and I'd argue from a symbolic interactionist point of view.

 

[Maelstrom]

I know he's done with this, so maybe no longer interested. I would have argued that differences in social skills counts as sensory impairments and I'd argue from a symbolic interactionist point of view.

Hi SocOfAutism ,sensory input on social empathy really isn't any different from being deaf or blind. A deaf person can't hear your emotional tone of voice so may miss a social cue leading to the unemployment line. Same with a blind person who can't see sadness or frustration etcetera...on his bosses face, pink slip city. And as a auti I can say I have actually gone temporarily deaf listening to a endless list of new instructions for a new job...this actually happened. How is that physically less real than deafness in that actual moment...as I was unable to hear the instructions. Saying a brain disability isn't a real physical disability because you can't see it makes no sense, you can't see a hurt back, or deafness, or blindness, you only see their results. If a thing can be accurately measured it is real, many of these autistic conditions are quite easy to spot and measure, and real people go to sleep hungry because it prevented stable employment.

People going hungry because of something they were born with, looks like a disability to me.