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

Yes, it was a typo. My first post said "exclusively hire" and that's what I was referring to. I meant "exclusively hire".

I OFFICIALLY RETRACT AND WHOLEHEARTEDLY APOLOGISE FOR MAKING A MISTAKE IN ACCIDENTALLY LEAVING OUT A WORD THAT I INTENDED AND AT NO POINT INTENDED TO ACCUSE POSTER OF HAVING STATED THEY HAD NEVER HEARD OF A COMPANY THAT HIRES DISABLED PEOPLE IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. Happy now???

Yes it is legal.

I repeat my post with error corrected:

It's very very odd that someone who claims to have worked in the disability field for 20 years to have never heard of companies/orgs that exclusively hire disabled people and to be unaware that such a thing is legal.

ditto

You are a bit much, you've continuously denied using the phrase disabled company, and now you are resorting to ad hominem attacks on people who have called you out on it.
Please stop pretending that this is word-policing: language is important; you change the language, pretend x means y and then realise you have created a fiction which can be used to attack reasonable people pointing out your own incoherence.

I hope everyone that feels so uncomfortable describing themselves have completed the appropriate Reasonable Adjustments form from HR.

Re patting the dog of course person b should not do that. I couldn't ever describe myself and find person a rude to ask. They right there how does what you look like matter in the job.

Eh? You go for a job interview, a course or on a date and you’re asked “How would you describe yourself?” and that’s rude?? Give me strength!

Being asked to physically describe yourself at a job interview would be rude. Describing your skill set and experience obviously would not be.

Do you get asked to physically describe what you look like at interviews?

Why? It's not something that needs to happen at all. The "adjustment" would be just that. It's not necessary.

This thread is a train wreck

I was being sarcastic. Well they do say it is the lowest form of wit.

I know you were. I meant the "describe yourself" is not necessary, not the filling in of a non existent form.

And that’s the point, it’s about interpretation and what people are comfortable saying. Ideally person A would explain the type of detail they do/don’t need and would allay any concerns regarding the participants.

Person B should not be petting a guide dog
But person A should set her straight on that.

Person A cant demand another persn to discribe theselves that's bonkers.

My point being people comparing being uncomfortable with a disability like they’re on a par. They need to realise their insecurities are their issue and believe it or not most people don’t even notice the thing that they believe everyone is focusing on. That said some people will never feel comfortable with themselves which is sad because letting that stuff go and loving yourself is life changing.

After reading all the updates (the OP just didn't give enough detail to decide):

I think with regards to petting the dog B was completely in the wrong, and had no right to feel singled out because she was doing something that she'd been asked not to do, and quite frankly she should have known not to do.

I think with regards to the personal details question - I actually think person A was at fault in that instance. Person A may have tried to phrase it politely by adding if you don't mind, but she should have been aware that by doing this in a small group there is still group pressure to do what they've been asked. Which means she should have been more careful about what she asked, and she shouldn't have included hair colour, she should have stuck with clothing colour, as that is a less personal question.

If I were in HR I would probably also say it's not an HR matter. It seems more like a line management issue, and an H&S issue, unless it's part of a series of incidences by person B. A one off where B was a little bit at fault but also a little bit not at fault doesn't seem like something that should be raised at that kind of level, it's complete overkill. You can note the incident just in case there are further incidences that require raising. B should be told by her line manager that she was in the wrong for petting the dog and be told that any further incidences could trigger disciplinary actions; and the organisation should send out something across the business reminding employees that they are required to follow ALL health and safety rules when they are working for the company, regardless of location.

I would probably also feed back to the trainer that the hair colour question was inappropriate in that environment as there may be many good reasons why people wouldn't want to answer (baldness, sexism, medical issues, religious headwear, etc etc). But I would apologise for B petting the dog, and let her know that the issue was being dealt with.

Person B is a twat and needs to be pulled up for such behaviour. My 8yo knows not to bother a working dog SMH.

How is being visually impaired being "woke"?
Struggling to comprehend this behaviour from a law firm. OP - start looking for a new job. You sound like a nice person and you could anonymously whistle blow on the way out. What a rubbish company.

I'm going to assume you typed this because you can see, and pls, correct me if I'm wrong.

Don't take it for granted because you can see. Imagine living in a world with limited detail. I would certainly ask for a description to have an idea at least.

✨️✨️✨️ this ✨️✨️✨️

@LittleSid i wouldn’t, I’m not sure what you’d want to know for🤷🏻‍♀️

What on EARTH are you talking about?

I've never, ever "denied" using the phrase disabled company, I've said a million times that disabled company is very common and MY and others choice of term.

Why are you so outraged and furious that an actual disabled person uses the language of their own choosing?

Why are you so obsessed with word policing, censoring disabled people's language, and making ad hominem attacks on them when they do not comply?

If anyone can give an actual reason why "disabled company" is bad and disabled people shouldn't be allowed to use it then I'm all ears.

Until then, given that "disabled company" is the norm and so many companies use it, I will continue to use it and not listen to bullies trying to dictate what words disabled people are and are not allowed to use.

All this fuss and tantrumming because a disabled person chose to use a term you've never heard of before!

Some people think anything that involves not treating minorities or marginalised groups like shit is "woke."

The kind of people who rant about wokeness hate anyone who is marginalised.

I get why people would want to know. It's obvious really. So much of the picture is missing when you can't see what people look like / communication through body language etc. Although it still can't be expected that people should comply with in depth descriptions about their body. I wouldn't. Not in that environment.

If the request is to identify who is where in the room (if someone has enough useful sight) then it is a reasonable request too. It would be better if the reasons why were explained to people and to ask for descriptor of the colour of clothes, not physical features. I'm sure people would get more on board with that if it's not intrusive and they can understand why.

I get why people would want to know. It's obvious really. So much of the picture is missing when you can't see what people look like / communication through body language etc
Sure. But how much if that is alleviated by a brief 2D description of a persons vital statistics?