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

No idea. Ask Judge Rinder. But he hasn't been on TV for ages.

If someone with autism was attending a training session then the trainer could be notified of this in advance so they can adjust the ask to accommodate the individual as a reasonable adjustment.

Oh the irony

The only self absorbed people on here are those kicking off about a reasonable request from a disabled person

Who was delivering fucking inclusivity training

If you're anxiety is so severe you can't say 'I'm wearing a blue top and have long blonde hair' you need therapy not workplace training

Agree 100%

As a VI person with completely blind family members, I can tell you yes, it would help us if you described yourself. I’m not speaking for all VI people but from our perspective, yes it would help. My family members used to have sight and yes it does have meaning to them if they know what you look like.

I would find it extremely helpful if I was running a training session and was given very basic information about what you’re wearing/hair colour. It would help me identify you and interact with you during the day and would enable me to run the day much more effectively.

If the attendees of such a training session chose - made a conscious choice - to exclude me from basic visual information present to everyone else in the room, no chance I would want to work there again.

If someone had indicated that an anxiety disorder or autism prevented them from public speaking before the session, that would be different and I would adjust for that. But those who choose to exclude me to prevent their own minor discomfort (in giving a very basic description of clothes/hair, nothing too personal) when I have no choice in living with my disability - yes, I do take issue with that.

Definitely shouldn't be patting the dog but I wouldn't fancy "describing myself" and no one should be forced to do that either imo

A trainer on anything diversity related being bought in to train people who clearly need it, needs to know that you can't go round asking insensitive questions such as 'describe yourself' and questioning.gender.

Just where did it say the trainer "questioned gender".?? Person B merely said they could tell she was a woman when refusing to describe themselves.

I'm not sure why it's so difficult to understand that this is not what the trainer asked for. As I have said repeatedly, saying "can you tell me the colour of the clothing on your top half" is, I believe, reasonable. A much more generic question is not. The irony is not showing itself in the way you think it is.

Person B needs a warning

I'd be giving your firm a wide berth.

I am no legal experts but thankfully I think laws will protect the reasonable adjustment of clarifying what you need to know about someone's physical appearance and why and only asking for the minimum. Plus potentially not asking in public but in some other way and with warning. There is a clear way to make reasonable adjustments both for the trainer and the trained and despite the fact that there are many on here who obviously need mental health awareness training, I do believe that the legal framework prevents their view prevailing.

And yes, B should be held to account for stroking the dog after asked not to.

I think what person A hasn't realise is that by giving the open ended "describe yourself" that someone who is self-conscious about an aspect of their appearance will automatically think of that and feel that if they don't say that, then everyone else will be thinking about that and wondering why they haven't stated the obvious. That will be true whether it is obvious to everyone or not!

My daughter would immediately think of her missing arm. She's quite happy to talk about it if she chooses, but she would feel forced into talking about it in front of everyone, which could leave her quite distressed.

Would something like "describe something you're wearing" work better both ways? (Obviously not if they're wearing a uniform.) People are likely to be happier talking about an item of clothing, I would think (I would), and it gives person A something about each person.

I find it shocking that people in your company would find it ok to speak to someone that way, let alone an external person, and to interact with a guide dog when explicitly asked not to. I wouldn't want to describe myself in front of a group either but I would just say that politely. Are you sure Person B is even intelligent enough to be employed at a law firm? Your HR manager sounds useless, and possibly afraid of having to deal with Person B so finds it easier to just blame Person A. If someone had behaved like Person B in my workplace they would be on a disciplinary for sure and everyone else would be horrified that they'd behaved that way. The law firm sounds full of horrible people except for you OP. You clearly have an uphill battle on your hands. Good luck!

That would then expose the autistic person in front of peers or colleagues as being different. Which isn't very inclusive.

Given that the OP obviously isn't come back it's a bit pointless continuing the saga. At the end of the day a decent trainer would have explained that they'd be helped by each person giving their name and what colour they were wearing, and would have explained why that helped (leading into the training session proper). If B had refused at that point it's clear they're a twat. But we don't don't know what happened so it's a waste of space continuing to guess. OP has obviously realised that her company has no clue what they're doing and is writing a letter of resignation.....

Yes but inclusivity doesn't go as far as autism, remember that. Belittling autistic folk is fine.

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

No, that's what you've interpreted the trainer was asking for

Because of your own strange neurosis and bias on this issue

“Unless you are (a) blind and (b) dong the same job, how can you possibly say what adjustments this person needs to do this specific job?”

The word need does not mean what you think it does.

It might help her, she might prefer it. She doesn’t need it and it has an impact on others, which needs to be balanced against her wish to know.

For those saying “well many meetings start with everyone introducing themselves” … some of us hate that. I literally never listen to what anyone else is saying as I’m busy worrying about what I’m going to say. Modern business habits like this make my life much more unpleasant and I hope they disappear again as quickly as they arose. And I’m a relatively socially competent person. Extroverts force all this shit on others. It’s thoughtless and obtrusive, as far as I’m concerned.

Im not interpreting anything. I'm basing it on the info the OP provided

Without my glasses I am basically partially sighted. (Or whatever the right term is. Not safe to get to the shower. Much less walk down the road.)
I would NEED to be coached down the steps. I don’t NEED to know if you’re brunette or tall.

B was rude and dismissive of A's disability. She shouldn't have touched the dog at all unless invited to and absolutely should have left it alone when asked, by not leaving the dog alone she was being disrespectful.

It sounds like Disability and Inclusion training is needed by everyone including HR.

Where I work it is part of our mandatory annual training.

Are there any people who have disabilities working in your company?

Hi all, I wasn't expecting so many replies and sorry I haven't read them all.

I did some more investigating today and spoke to other participants.

They confirmed that B said and did what A complained about.

Acorrding to other participants:
A introduced themselves and their dog. Explained visually impaired with some residual sight. Vision is blurry but they can see colours.
A asked people politely not to pet dog and explained it could be a safety concern if they did that. A asked people to describe either their hair colour or clothing colour and said this was to help her distinguish between people. Apparently A said "if you don't mind" so there was a recognition in that, I think, that not everyone may want to do so.
Other participants felt embarrassed by B although one of those other participants said "maybe she felt singled out".

I have emailed this feedback to head of HR again (who is not in the office today) and she is going to speak to B but I don't know how that will go or if head of HR will do anything other than that. I fear it might be just to be seen to be doing something.

sorry forgot to add - A didn't ask for pronouns, sex or gender.

What happened to suggest B may have felt singled out?

So what is the head of HR going to say to B? ‘ Please co operate with trainer’s requests whilst in a voluntary training session? ‘ Yes, okay.

‘ be a nicer person? ‘ hmmm.

although the passionate advisers for the trainer will disagree, I’m not sure that this would help ‘ inclusivity’ in the long run ( especially in light of the ‘singled out’ comment).