who is being unreasonable? disabled person 'over sensitive'

[amazeandastonish]

Person A has multiple disabilities and asks if everyone in a group can do something as a reasonable adjustment.
Person B refuses to do so. Person A asks again and explains why adjustment is needed. Person B tells person A they are 'woke', 'over sensitive' and that they (person B) will not be 'dictated to' by someone who doesn't even work here.
Person A complains to me (D&I advisor) and head of HR (my manager).
Neither me, nor manager were present.
Person A is an external disability awareness trainer and the group are a group of staff we had asked them to train on disabilitiy awareness as we had identified a need for it (as you can see!).
We struggled to get sign ups - expecting 30 but only 10 signed up. All other 9 people were positive about the session content.
Head of HR thinks Person A should 'let it go' because we are paying them, they are meant to be teaching us right from wrong, so should have expected that reaction and just dealt with it.
Head of HR thinks Person A was rude to 'single someone out' although neither of us were there to witness it (cause we had 'other things to do' - I did protest!)
I think we should action this but as you can see, my job isn't an easy one!

YABU - the trainer should have expected this / dealt with it themselves
YANBU - the trainer was right to complain and we should do something

@NumberTheory

Person B was at a course designed to show how people can be inclusive of those with disabilities

She was asked for a small action which is inclusive to the disabled host of the course

She refused and went off on one, saying it was woke

How you don't seem to understand the issues here is baffling to me

There are also many sexuality based awareness courses, my work do one every 6 months. If you went to that and refused to disclose your sexuality as part of the session and said people are woke for doing it, you'd be sat in a disciplinary real quick

It's nothing like assertiveness training. The fact you even think this shows the level of intellect you're playing with

One thing this thread has shown is that there are a lot of people who would feel uncomfortable if put on the spot and asked to describe themselves.

Surely that is enough to say that this is not a reasonable request or adjustment.

@Kendodd

You're showing exactly why this type of training is needed

You sat there saying 'why should I go out of my comfort zone to make a disabled person feel included' is exactly what these courses are for

People like you

Who sadly still make up a portion of the population

Your employee is an embarrassment and should have her arse handed to her. And yes I work in HR.
If that behaviour is tolerated involving a third party Your business doesn't value diversity at all and you may as well look for another job as you'll get nowhere there
Awful

Absolutely. The account doesn’t ring true to me so I would definitely want both sides.

Law firms can be the worst about these things, for some reason they seem to assume either that the law doesn't apply to them or that they can evade it. Some years ago, I worked for one that decided to make a number of redundancies, and the bosses wondered why they ended up getting sued when the only people picked for redundancy were black women.

I'd love to sit in on that employment tribunal. Disciplined for not publicly disclosing their sexuality?! Really, that is not going to happen.

@EgonSpengler2020

Did you miss the part about 'saying it's woke for doing it'?

Also in this case there is a serious risk of repetitional harm which is definitely gross misconduct in almost everywhere I've ever worked

That’s awful. People are entitled to privacy. By the way if you disciplined an employee for refusing to disclose their sexuality you could end up in a tribunal. You can force people to state their sexuality in public in the workplace.

@MsPincher

You're really not doing yourself any favours on this post

Repeatedly not understanding why someone who is visually impaired might benefit from some descriptions to help them when meeting people and now not reading sentences properly

The biggest issue is the 'woke' element

The refusal to participate is bad enough, the woke comments are what makes this a disciplinary matter

No. These are people working in a law firm. They should surely be bright enough to work out a way of describing themselves that they are comfortable with, or alternatively explaining that they too have a disability which means that this would cause them distress. They don't have to do it publicly, they could take the trainer aside to explain that. The only reasonable adjustment they need is being excused from complying with this request. What is simply totally inappropriate and unacceptable is ignoring it or being rude about it.

F** that - you claim to be a law firm and don't know that verbally attacking a disabled person in such an insulting way is illegal and wrong? Shame it was a guide dog - another dog might have bit her. How insulting to the trainer. Where I work, and we aren't at all "woke" (whatever that is supposed to denote), she have been on disciplinary charges by now. And deserve to be.

The dog is working and should be left alone. It would be like B brushing your hair, totally inappropriate. Ask B to wear a blindfold for a day and see how they feel about people not describing themselves, all they need to say is I’m a 5’7” female with short blonde hair, they don’t need measurements.
The whole point of a reasonable adjustment is to try and create a level playing field for the member of staff.
If B isn’t careful they could be accused of disability discrimination.

@Figgygal if you work in HR, you should know that an investigation needs carried out before you can state what you have just written. I’m not saying you are wrong, but the op needs to throughly investigate and not make assumptions.

Thank you for questioning my level of intellect and then doing this. I’m not above a bit of petty schadenfreude. I refer you back to my first reply to you at 20:45 where you will see that you have just followed your head up your own arse.

Well, perhaps you should ask a blind person that question. But people on here have given a number of reasons. Would you seriously go to a session like that where a blind person tells you what would help them to do their job and start arguing with them about it? Can you see how incredibly crass that would be?

If you are going to say that your discomfort should absolve you from this, I hope you have already told your employers about this disability so that they can make the reasonable adjustments that you apparently require. But are you seriously saying that there is absolutely no way you could comply with this request and be comfortable? Even if it's just a matter of saying, say, "I'm average height, blonde hair, and I'm wearing a blue jumper today"?

If it was a VI person giving a presentation on a completely unrelated topic, then maybe you'd have a point, but surely a dedicated session on disability and inclusion is exactly the place to have these discussions in the open, so that everyone can understand what impact one persons 'reasonable adjustments' could have on someone else's needs.

playing with a working guide dog is very much not ok. It's similar to playing with the brakes on a wheelchair user's chair. Totally shitty behaviour.

But it's fine to not want to describe yourself. Loads of reasons why someone might not be ok with that. It's not a reasonable adjustment if you are asking someone to confront something that they don't normally have to cope with at work with no notice if that's something that will cause them issues.

I am curious about whether the requirement to self-describe included an instruction to share pronouns. Google for the 'Pronouns are rophynol' article for why this might go against someone's beliefs - beliefs that have been established in law as legitimate and worthy of protection under the equalities act. I can see how being told to set aside my beliefs as a "reasonable adjustment" for someone else would get my back up and make me very uncooperative.

But what you’re describing isn’t the scenario as you are describing yourself, it’s not a discussion. All you need to say is probably your height, hair colour and if you feel comfortable maybe hair length. They’re not asking a male colleague to comment nor do you have to give your inside leg measurement and bra size. Person A’s aim isn’t making people uncomfortable, they are visually impaired, I don’t think people are appreciating how hard that must be.

Yes I would seriously go into a session like that and say 'im not willing to give a physical description of myself '.
Could you please tell me how saying that would prevent the trainer from doing their job?
It could actually add to the value training session, in that it could open up discussion about why this information is wanted by the trainer. Where one person's rights and comfort end and anothers begin and how those rights should be balanced. How a man asking a young woman to give a physical description of herself, in front of a room full of people might make her very uncomfortable. And then that man demanding this information from her under threat of disciplinary action, may not be ok.

I agree with PP that we may not be getting the full story here. Why should B say ‘I’m a woman’? Had the trainer asked for the dreaded pronouns? That would explain why B may have felt disgruntled before the session got going?

I have run a lot of training sessions on all sorts of topics in my working life ( not about sexuality awareness though, I think I would rather starve). I can’t remember ever complaining about an attendee, although like every trainer, I occasionally experienced some fairly bizarre and inattentive behaviour. One of the skills which a qualified trainer should have is to run the group harmoniously and in an involving way . If an attendee was being totally disruptive, I would ask them to leave, and attempt to get the group to agree that this was the best course of action.

I’m not sure that the trainer had the proper qualifications to run a training session,,perhaps they would have benefitted from a moderator to run the group, and they could be there to describe the interventions which they would find helpful.

I am curious about whether the requirement to self-describe included an instruction to share pronouns.

This will be part of the missing information that the op hasn't shared. Possibly because she hasn't asked the other participants for their version.

You can certainly ask politely how it helps them. You don't get to tell them their reasonable adjustments are woke and over-sensitive.

@Kendodd

What do you not understand - it's not about being able to do one's job

It's about inclusion

Also making a point about reasonable adjustments for inclusivity of those that are disabled during a disability awareness course is very much that persons job.

Asking them to make those adjustments is part of the course, therefore part of the trainers job

I am very fat. In this scenario, I could either say I’m fat, which would make me feel horribly embarrassed, or I could avoid it, which would make me spend a long time being preoccupied with thinking that everyone was quietly laughing at me for not stating the obvious.

what would be better and more inclusive would be the trainer saying “please could everyone share one thing about their appearance today” which would give them a touchstone for each person but avoid putting others in a difficult situation.