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

Petting

Not distracting guide dog - should be common sense; it's something children should be taught at a young age.

Describing appearance - I can see how that might be difficult for some people, particularly if pressed for specifics beyond 'I'm 5'6 with shoulder length black hair'.

But as I said in my previous post, the manner used by person B was rude. All that was needed was 'I'm unwilling to do that, sorry.'

Asking them not to distract the dog and to describe their appearance is a perfectly reasonable adjustment and Person B was a dick to carry on after being asked not to.

I'd definitely be looking at disciplinary proceedings because no matter which way you colour it, that's shitty behaviour. If I was an external trainer I'd have formed an opinion about the calibre of your employees and would certainly share that opinion with my contacts if asked about your company.

I'm not sure about describing my appearance but patting a guide dog while it's working I'm uncomfortable with.

Obviously it was reasonable. Repeatedly distracting a guide dog after being asked not to is appalling. But your HR person thinks this is singling someone out? And you’re a law firm? Seriously?!

Not to distract the guide dog is something even young children should know. The instructor has a right to complain on that alone.
It depends what you mean by ‘describe yourself’. Saying your job role in a company is a perfectly reasonable request. Most of other things are irrelevant.

If the trainer is visually impaired, then they’re offering the chance to the participants to be inclusive towards them by describing to them what they look like. It’s taken for granted that we can all see what someone looks like. They’re challenging that assumption.

Head of HR is wrong not to take the complaint seriously, Person B acted like a twat.

I don’t even think this is a reasonable adjustment- not bothering a guide dog is common sense and a child could follow that request.

Describing yourself for someone who is blind is a very simple request to do, is person B usually a complete idiot?

^^ this

Person B sounds awful. They were very rude to an external professional. Of course Person A was correct to report their behaviour.

Not 5he best advert if your clients happen to be disabled.

I'm assuming that 'describe yourself' was a physical description. If we're talking about 'I'm Felicity Skybillybong Dimplebum and I'm the CEO' then it's a different story.

Person b is absolutely awful for refusing to stop patting the dog and absolutely should be spoken to, if not disciplined

’Describe yourself’ can be extremely uncomfortable for some people and person B should have just declined, which person A should have accepted.

Of course no one should distract a guide dog. They were an arse for doing that.
But I can understand why some people may feel uncomfortable describing themselves. Not sure why it’s necessary either.

I think that the trainer is well within their rights to tell person B to stop letting their dog, but can’t force person A to describe themselves if the my don’t want to. The way in which person B refused and insulted person A is however unacceptable. Could be learning needed in both sides.

Head of HR doesn't see an issue, I do, so I guess I'm posting on here because I'm struggling to get any support or agreement to take action. I'm posting because head of HR thinks this is trainer's issue, not ours to deal with.

Person A (trainer) said they wanted to know appearance to know who they are talking to and get an equal experience, as sighted people woudl know what we all look like.

I believe something is reasonable if it is effective, not disruptive, not too costly and practical to make. So I think the trainer was making reasonable requests to feel included and equal.

Person b acted like a twat distracting the guide dog. That is a very reasonable adjustment that your workplace should easily be able to accommodate and hr or whoever should have words to ensure it is in the future.

If person B were my employee, they would be facing a disciplinary for bringing the company into disrepute. The way she treated the trainer was a disgrace

As employers you should be really coming down on person B. I think that her patting the dog after being asked not to is outrageous. How would you feel if she did this to a client? You would be in for a world of trouble.

Sounds like your company needs a lot more training as you know their is a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments what is thr policy on the member of staff who refuses to do so....including your boss who says let it go.? ....thats what the trainer should be highlighting to all of you.

Person B shouldn't have kept touching the dog. However they also don't need to describe themselves. Whilst it might be nice for person A, and they could invite people to do so if they wanted, it shouldn't be an expectation and they are being ridiculous for complaining about that. Touching the guide dog is rude and disrespectful though.

Head of HR doesn't see an issue,

This is worrying.

I imagine this isn’t a very successful law firm.

Well the majority of people can see someone has long brown hair, blue eyes and is tall so I think it's a very simple and reasonable request providing there was an understanding it was a brief physical description.
As for the dog stuff - that's outrageous and B should have been told to stop immediately by someone senior or face a disciplinary now.

Person B is a dick.

Everyone knows you don't distract a guide job. They are a working dog. This was a deliberate action and the fact she showed no respect to the visitor could be disability discrimination if other visitors are shown respect. Because they are choosing to show no respect due to disability.

As a law firm you know that reasonable adjustments do have to meet a threshold of reasonable. That adjustments are not mandatory but must be done where they can be and if it's not a totally unreasonable cost and safe to do so.

There was absolutely NO reason this request shouldn't be followed. It's not even a reasonable adjustment but rather respect - bet she doesn't stroke and pay other colleagues which in a work context this dog is.

I'd be bloody pissed off with HR too. How can you change a culture that doesn't even admit it has a cultural issue or deal with issues effectively when they arise.

In my workplace she'd have had her arse (quite rightly) handed to her on a plate by colleagues and manage T!