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

But why does it matter to their role as a disability trainer?

A) so the trainer can see the people in their own way the same as everyone else in the room and

B) as a good learning tool to teach people about inclusion.

Why is it so hard ti understand?

It's quite sad blind people are having to go into workplaces to explain to apparently intelligent adults how to treat blind people fairly.

And people think we've moved forward with disability understanding

But why does it matter to their role as a disability trainer?

It matters to them as a person.

Gracious me, this thread.

I do hope it has given at least some people pause for thought and the chance to challenge their assumptions and think about how they’d respond to this request.

This is a better answer, of course.

It’s quite likely they ask the question in D&I training in order to get people to think about the issues.

The guy was obviously a tosser being rude so I don’t think the scenario OP posted about boils down to whether the trainer had a “right” or not.

But in general I don’t see how it being a disability training would make a difference to whether or not it’s OK to insist on someone describing themselves if it makes them really uncomfortable. The trainer can explain how it disadvantages them without insisting that people must describe themselves. Managing when they haven’t received a visual description of one or more attendees and people seeing the difference that makes would do more to highlight the impact than everyone giving a description anyway.

If it’s a voluntary training and people weren’t told before hand what was going to be expected of them then you have to work around people not being comfortable enough to do everything. It’s one thing to discipline assholery and another to discipline someone being caught out with something they hadn’t expected and aren’t comfortable with.

As an HR professional, I would be investigating this as gross misconduct. It was incredibly disrespectful and discriminatory behaviour. Whilst the argument is that the visitor was there to address D&I, it is clear that the individual is not prepared to be educated.

Obviously is common sense not to distract a guide god. Everyone knows that, most even have notices on their jackets.

Not sure why anyone needs to describe their appearance though. 'Hi person A, it's X I am fat, my hair hasn't been washed in days and I look like I haven't slept in a few weeks' would be my description currently.

Person B should be fired along with Head of HR. Being paid to do a job doesn't mean person A has to put up with discrimination.

Jesus Christ op - the organisation you work for is appalling.

Person A is visually impaired-asking people to describe themselves is to enable them to share in some of the visual information which sighted people take for granted.

It only needed to be: "I have brown hair and blue eyes and am wearing a red jacket" ffs.

@NumberTheory

Because the entire reason they're there is to learn about how to be inclusive of those with disabilities

Refusing to do this shows how not inclusive this person is

OP, yanbu.

I am unsure of why one needs to describe their appearance though? How is it relevant in a law firm work situation?

The trainer can explain how it disadvantages them without insisting that people must describe themselves.

True. They could also ask why they are happy for every person in the room with sight to know their hair and eye colour, clothing etc but not them.

That would be a really good learning tool to remind those with sight what they seem to have failed to realise. People can see you!

And get them to really question why someone without sight isn't allowed to "see" them.

But judging by this thread they'd still meet people completely unable to comprehend that simple fact

My mum had numerous guide dogs. The person stroking the dog was an idiot. It's the number one rule when a dog is working.

I don't think it's at all necessary for anyone to describe their appearance. Both of my parents are/were blind. They would never have requested that because it's irrelevant.

But you are choosing to describe those physical characteristics.

You could equally say "I'm 5"5, have dark hair and blue eyes"

Both your description you gave and my alternative can be seen by everyone else in the room.

But it's quite obvious yours isn't what they are asking. People know what "describe yourself means".

Even the 5yo I teach can grasp that simple task

Correct I have done this training.

I’m generally quite uncomfortable with training sessions where I might be expected to do things I haven’t mentally prepared for. Indeed I walked out of a work event a couple of weeks ago, because I was prepared for lectures and panel discussions, where audience input would normally be in the form of voluntary questions, and instead was being asked to do various verbal exercises with a stranger who happened to be sitting beside me.

So I can imagine a situation where B thought they were going to have reasonable adjustments explained to them, and instead found themselves having to participate. So it does rather depend whether B is someone who genuinely needs reasonable adjustments herself, or is just an awkward sod.

Am I correct in thinking that reasonable adjustments, in the normal way of things, would be agreed between the manager and employee, and then introduced to the rest as something that the manager had agreed to, and was therefore more official? Presumably other people could then object to management directly if they disagreed? Any attack on the employee themselves or failure to comply with the adjustments would also be for management to deal with.

But if this was a trainer, I would expect her to be able to train people and, to an extent, that should involve being able to deal with difficult trainees.

It does sound like B was beyond reasonable and the trainer would be within her rights to ask B to leave the session and explain to the manager(s) who brought her in, why she had done so. I would then expect the manager(s)to talk to B about it, to hear B’s side, and find out why she behaved so badly.

Only after hearing B’s side, and ideally also after hearing other people’s comments about what occurred between A and B, would I then be able to make an assessment of who was unreasonable. It sounds like B, but it’s always important to give people a chance to explain themselves, even if you have to take past behaviour into account.

I've only really known two blind people in my life, neither of them EVER asked me for a physical description of myself, one of them I knew very well. Both were male, I am female and I was mostly alone with them (volunteer driver). If they'd asked me to give a physical description of myself I would have been extremely offended and upset. Why do they want to know what I look like? So they can make judgments about me? Know how attractive (or not) I am. And I am shocked that people think it's ok for blind to demand physical descriptions of shop assistants.

I'd buy that if it wasn't for the fact when person B was told not to strike the dog they ignored it and carried on. They clearly weren't interested in learning a thing.

Haven’t RTFT so apologies if this is a repeated question… but surely in a LAW FIRM they are aware of the equality act? And they could be sued under this?

@Kendodd

You seem to be extremely paranoid

Do you not understand that it puts people on a level playing field

You can see what they look like, other people who aren't VI or blind can see what you look like, it's reasonable for them to ask. Especially if they're visually impaired and have limited vision

I'd buy that if it wasn't for the fact when person B was told not to strike the dog they ignored it and carried on. They clearly weren't interested in learning a thing.

Well yes, almost certainly. I’d still ask them why though, before making a decision about what action to take.

Person b was a wanker. (Im assuming its moved on since page one but they were enough of a wanker to merit me not reading the fucking thread)

I've known a lot of blind and partially sighted people through my parents and not one has ever asked me or anyone around me to describe themselves. I personally find it a very odd request.

The continued patting of the good dog when asked/reminded not to, is not acceptable.

The insistance on needing others to describe themselves when they may not be comfortable doing so, is not a reasonable adjustment. It is unnecessary, I work remotely from colleauges in our control room who in nearly 2 decades I have never met and have no idea what they like, but recognise their voice straight away, I don't need to know their appearance to do my job. Obviously some people can be quite uncomfortable about their body and appearance, to the point of diagnosable MH disorders in extreme cases, so I don't think it is reasonable to ask a professional contact you have just met to describe themselves for this reason.

We are of course all assuming that because A was VI and had various disabilities that they were also an excellent trainer. They may actually be a really crap trainer and, although obviously all too aware of the difficulties they and others face, useless at getting that message across or dealing with anyone who asks sensible questions. The other attendees may be the sort of people that are terribly compliant, wouldn't say boo to a goose and would say that training was superb because they thought it was expected of them. Fact of the matter is that we don't know and are having to base our judgement on what little OP has told us. And that's remarkably little (and quite possibly just a wind up).

And is it reasonable for me to say 'no' to the request for a physical description? Or if I was a Tesco employee, should I face disciplinary action for refusing such a request from a customer ?