Someone telling everyone I have autism when I don’t have it

[Winterinwonderland]

In addition to my full time job I am a volunteer and executive trustee for a charity.

The charity chair set up a chat with a large number of people in it and told them I have autism. I do not have autism.

He also told them I had incidents at home. This was news to me having had no incidents at home.

A third party replied on the chat stating that I do not have autism and that there had not been any incidents at home. He was getting me mixed up with someone else.

He refused to accept this and has carried on telling everyone I have autism.

I have issued a GDPR SAR and Article 16 notice.
He has now blocked my access to IT systems and suspended me not following the governing document.

The other trustees have told him to make a rectification notice and apologise but he has refused. He has also been told the suspension was illegal and not authorised by the trustees.

This man has several complaints against him lodged with the charity commission for a large catalogue of issues. We all have our interviews this week.

AIBU take legal action against him for defamation or should I let it go. I am not willing to pursue the charity for obvious reasons.

Unfortunately people with Autism can face discrimination. And just because @Winterinwonderland views being falsely portrayed as having Autism as defamatory does not mean that she thinks that there is something wrong with having Autism.

His lie is damaging to her reputation because it opens her up to being regarded as having a disorder that some people view quite negatively. (Not that they are right to discriminate against people who have Autism).

It also opens her up to people making reasonable adjustments for her based on their belief that she needs reasonable adjustments made according to her having a disorder. This changes the professional relationship.

Mental illness is also something that people don’t need to feel ashamed of. But no one would be ok with being labeled as mentally ill if they were not. It actually could result in you being discredited or being viewed as mentally unfit to do your job or viewed as being delusional.

It is very wrong for someone to use a disability as a way to harm someone’s reputation.

I think he should be held accountable.

@x2boys - I don’t disagree with you, I just don’t think she could win a defamation case. I also think she needs to be very careful how she frames any complaint about this or some people will perceive her as saying autism is bad.

I agree.
It would need to be very, very clear in any actions you personally raise that your issue isn't with the chair stating that you have autism, but is
A. That he has shared what he believed to be personal details without prompting or consent
B. That he refuses to retract
C. That he had blocked your access when the matter of misinformation has been raised.

I have taken this stance already @Missedmytoe

The op has not done anything wrong, she should not have to 'be careful' it is not the ops fault

Excellent.
It's a tricky one to negotiate, so fingers crossed that there'll be a resolution whereby he is able to appreciate the boundaries he's overstepped.

Where's Jackie Weaver when you need her?

It may not be defamation but it probably is discrimination by perception: he is treating you less favourably because of his perception that you have a disability. I would absolutely look at bringing a case under the Equality Act.

@devildeepbluesea i am not an employee

I should have said that since all this has happened I have had people contacting me to make enquiries about my home life and asking questions about having any problems or issues.
it’s very stressful because he’s down this seed that there are problems when there genuinely aren’t any. Obviously I’ve told them all there are no problems and they don’t need to worry etc

@Winterinwonderland you don’t need to be an employee. The Equality Act applies in all situations, not just work.

Be very clear that whilst you don't have autism him sharing that (inappropriate disclosure) places the organisation at risk of flouting equalities legislation, confidentiality. Because he is inaccurate, gossipy and incapable of following guidelines.

You can use the examples of people approaching you inappropriately to demonstrate that by dint of assumption of a disability you are being harassed- which he has instigated. IF he genuinely believes you have asd then he has discriminated against you. Terrible for anyone in the organisation who does have autism. I'd certainly resign

ASD is in the DSM5 and is classified as a disability. Outing someone rightly or wrongly then refusing to back down when put straight is bang out of order. And yes, your personal infomation, your data has been breached so yes, deffo a GDPR breach.

I would definitely report him.

He has blocked your access and is targeting you. So yes, absolutely make a complaint.

I am being assessed with autism and ADHD, I feel it is a disability, only in so much I don't belong in a neurological society as it is horrible and overwhelming.

This man used words and implications that you were untrustworthy and unsuitable, so it was also a kind of disability discrimination too.

I'd be absolutely furious.

None of what he did was from a place of genuine kindness was it. So blindingly obvious to me. I wasn't going to add a comment but I was angry by the other comments like "just leave" or "what's your problem"...

Baffling.

This

To prove defamation is to be able to prove that harm has been caused to your reputation. You would be asking the court to rule that being autistic is a negative thing. A court will not do that. Would you object to being called gay for example?

Defamation cases are incredibly expensive and difficult to win at the best of times.

It's a rabbit hole you don't want to go down.

I'm also autistic and diabetic and agree with every word of this.

Autism is a disability, and to be diagnosed with it you need to have impairments which have a significant impact on your everyday functioning. I'm not so thin-skinned as to take offence at someone not wanting it falsely attributed to them.

Edit: oh FFS, my quote didn't work. That was to @Idtotallybangdreamoftheendlessnotgonnalie

@Idtotallybangdreamoftheendlessnotgonnalie I am also autistic. And agree that him lying and refusing to acknowledge he is wrong is awful. I also agree that even if she was autistic it’s not his place to tell anyone. I disagree with labelling that action as defamation and pursuing it in court because of reasons that others have posted far more eloquently than I can.

Autism is a negative thing for me personally. I wish I could magic it away and be normal but equally, I wish society would just be a bit nicer to all autistic people, with all levels of support needs.

Autism is a disability and as such can be very disabling to some people being gay is not a disability.

Find another charity more worthy of you.

Rather than expensive legal action for defamation, you could 1. Report the GDPR breach to the ICO 2. Report the equality law offence to the police. If either case goes anywhere it will support the Charity Commission to take any action. However, the Charity Commission has very little power, so don't count on that. The trustees do have power to get rid of him, so they shouldn't resign.

What does he achieve by saying this? Are you filling a disability quota or something?

I'm not disputing that. I'm pointing out that from a legal perspective you have to prove that damage was caused and that it was done with malice.

Autism, whilst impacting some people severely, does not mean that you are a lesser person. The same applies to calling someone gay. Asking the court to find defamation in saying someone is autistic is like asking them to agree autistic people are not equal to others.

I agree.

I think there is a lack of awareness of the law regarding defamation in some of these replies. The costs are prohibitive if nothing else.

I have professional indemnity insurance

Defamation is about reputation damage. Reputation is a social thing. If most people in society, having been told a certain thing about you, would be less likely to use your services, or less likely to trust you, or less likely to think you're competent, then your reputation has been damaged — whether or not those people are actually correct to think that way about people with that characteristic. If it's false information, and it damages your reputation, then it's not unreasonable to consider it defamation. Acknowledging this wouldn't require the court to believe or state that autistic people are actually lesser people or not equal to others, just that society as a whole is such that having something like this said about you can damage your social standing or reputation.

I agree it would be a total ballache to pursue in court with no guarantee of success, but as an autistic diabetic who is not heterosexual, I have no issue acknowledging that it can be harmful to one's reputation to have these things thought/known to be true of you. There are people who think less of me because of these things. So I've no objection to someone being upset and considering it defamation when someone falsely attributes these characteristics to them.

We will have to agree to differ. I'm a solicitor and I do not believe under the current defamation laws and that given that autism is a protected characteristic then there would be any hope whatsoever of proving defamation in the circumstances outlined by the OP.

He's bullying and harassing. Frame it as that.

You have been labelled as one thing, which is incorrect and he has then undermined you and tried to restrict your access to things for no reason. When you have tried to correct him he has ignored and has continued to belittle you. If you did have autism he would be discriminating against you deliberately because he sees being autistic as a reason a valid to treat you in this way.

Defamation is the wrong way to go.

This is all about the correct framing. He is trying to control others and bully and intimidate them out of the organisation. He is placing the organisations reputation in jeopardy. As a trustee you should have the power to boot him on this basis not the other way around.

Remember the Equality Act prevents discrimination on the basis of perceived identity - therefore you can't discriminate against a women because she 'might get pregnant' - this includes women who aren't pregnant and who can't get pregnant for fertility reasons - this includes even if it's known this woman has fertility issues, expresses a clear desire not to get pregnant or any other reason you can think of. Equally you can't discriminate against someone because you think they are gay (even if they are perfectly straight). The discrimination is based on the actions taken on basis of identity. You can refuse service because you think someone is gay even if they turn out to be perfectly straight.

If he thinks he can treat someone who generally has autism in this way, that's not acceptable. If he is harassing you and bullying you by saying he believes you to be autistic and treating you differently as a result that's harassment, bullying and potentially discriminatory behaviour. He's using discrimination as a way to deem you and to remove tasks from you.

As a charity you have the duty to ensure fair and equal treatment under the Equality Act. If he is demonstrating he treats people who he believes to be autistic differently and in a poorer way that's not ok. It's discrimination.

He needs retraining at best.