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.

Even if you did have autism, he doesn’t have the right to share that information with anyone.

even if you tell your employer your medical information, it is still your choice if that information is shared with other employees, clients, or contacts.

Fair enough; you're educated to a much higher level than me on this, and I do agree that pursuing it in court is likely to be a fruitless and expensive move. But I'm surprised if things can be ruled out as defamatory just because people technically shouldn't discriminate on that basis, if the reality is that people are treated worse when thought to have that characteristic. It seems… idealistic.

Exactly. Sharing that information breeches confidentially if it's true and constitutes harassment and bullying if he knows it to be untrue. In both cases it's discriminatory because he treats someone more poorly on the basis of a protected characteristic and thinks that's acceptable behaviour.

I'm sorry he's lied about you having 'issues' at home but even if you did have Autism, that's not something that would require an apology as though it's a fucking insult! That in itself is insulting to those of us with Autistic children....!

@DumboHimalayan Autism is a disability, and to be diagnosed with it you need to have impairments which have a significant impact on your everyday functioning

Utterly incorrect. My DD has Autism and her what you call impairments' () do not have any kind of significant impact on her every day functioning at all! Stop spreading false information

Go and read the criteria. If you have an issue with the language, take it up with them.

It’s unprofessional of him to disclose personal information about people. Even if it were true I can’t understand why he thought it was their business to know, especially bringing your home life into it. It sounds a horrible situation for you. I would just make it clear to everyone who has been told that it’s not true and that you are concerned about him, and flip it around. This might sound generalising (because it is), but I know a few people who are diagnosed autistic and are high functioning and it’s still obvious they are on the autistic spectrum. Surely people will recognise you don’t have characteristics of being autistic anyway and recognise that he is wrong when you tell them he is wrong.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/discrimination/taking-action-about-discrimination/taking-action-about-harassment/

It’s also discrimination if someone harassed you because they made a mistake about your protected characteristics. For example, it’s discrimination if you and your housemate are straight but your landlord made offensive jokes about you being gay. This is called ‘discrimination by perception’.

Also
If someone who works for one of these organisations harasses you, the organisation is also responsible for the discrimination. For example if your colleague harasses you, your colleague and your employer are both legally responsible.

If you’re using a business or service and another customer harasses you, it isn’t usually discrimination. It might be discrimination if the customer keeps harassing you and the business or service knows about it but doesn’t stop them.

He is harassing you on the basis of perceived identity. He is disclosing information he knows to be false or if it was true would fall under Data Protection. He has been asked to cease and desist and has continued and has treated you unfairly on the basis of this protected characteristic in a discriminatory way. The charity has a duty to protect you. If they do not, you have case against both them and him on a personal level.

The duty I believe falls to the Trustees to ensure the charity is run properly and within the law. A chair who is discriminating on the basis of identity is potentially breaking the law and the Trustees have a duty to remove him because the Equality Act.

If you resign rather than attempting this, you leave the charity in a position where there is risk to the public and you are potentially not upholding your duties as a trustee to leave knowing this. So you technically are legally bound to take some action or potentially could be held liable if something were to happen to others along similar lines because you were fully aware of this man discriminating. It's unlikely to ever go like this (especially as the report to the charity commission would probably cover your arse) BUT if you do take your role as trustee seriously you should pursue the charity and/or him because your duty is to safeguard the public / to ensure the charity is run within the law - including the EA.

You do have a conflict of interest going on here because you are both victim and technically liable for his behaviour.

I would throw all the other trustees under the bus if they fail to back you up...

Is he trying to discredit you so that you will leave?

Is it because he has a relative or friend he wants to take your place or have you offended him personally in some way you don't know of and he hates you?

It's not about saying autism is an insult, or that disabilities are bad. (I have autism and ADHD and am disabled by them).

What he's saying is really harmful - he is giving an account of your life and your needs that is wholly inaccurate.

He made you out to have a condition and circumstances in such a way that would imply that you have significant care needs and vulnerabilities. Because he is doubling down, and punishing you, he is also now making you look like a liar and destroying your credibility and reputation.

I think this counts for slander, especially as he was asked to rectify his mistake but refused - but you'd probably need a lot of money to go there.

He sounds like a very dangerous man: somebody who would rather destroy somebody's reputation and punish and exclude a charity volunteer, than to "lose face" by accepting he made a simple mistake. Narcissists are like toddlers and pathologically can't deal with any kind of shame, their egos can't handle it. Hence never admitting to mistakes.

He is also willing to broadcast confidential details of medical problems and home life of his volunteers. Could this be a breech of GDPR? Could you get the person he mixed you up with onside?

I would complain about him and go as high up as you can: complain to every high-up staff member in the charity you can think of, and write public reviews warning people about your experience volunteering there.

You could also report his behaviour to the police as malicious communications; there's no harm in reporting, the police will either be interested or they won't.

Don't worry about harming the charity, this man's presence will be doing far more harm than you, and is likely responsible for their staffing issues.

Well good for you, but please take a minute to show consideration for the majority of people with autism who are significantly impaired by their condition. This includes me. And there are people vastly more affected than me - some people with autism need constant 2-1 supervision, wear nappies and helmets, and cannot speak - do you ever think about them from your ivory tower?

If your daughter's needs are among the lowest, you should pipe down.

PabloandGustheGreySquirrels

No you are incorrect. To get a diagnosis symptoms need to impact daily functioning.

Then she shouldn’t have been diagnosed. It’s literally part of the diagnostic criteria.

You should speak to a lawyer about it, I would consider it as a defamation not because there is something wrong with the diagnosis, its because you don't have it and it's as simple as that. Even if a person did have any condition he doesn't have any rights to spread that information. Aren't medical records confidential? So unless a person explicitly gave him permission to give their medical conditions to the world, it should not be given. It seems like he is associating autism and "having incidents at home" which in itself is discriminatory. Just read this on Internet "Health and care records are confidential so a person can only access someone else's records if they are authorised to do so. To access someone else's health records, a person must: be acting on their behalf with their consent, or. have legal authority to make decisions on their behalf (i.e. power of attorney),". Its better to enquire about all these with a solicitor who specialises in this.

Thanks everyone for your views and opinions. I actually have already started the data protection route already.

All the trustees are backing me but as I said there have been mass resignations. There are around ten complaints lodged with the charity commission already. I had my interview and it’s being escalated now. All his conduct has been documented and CC are fully aware.

I have no issue with being called autistic. My issue is really relating to the data protection element and making up lies about home life. He’s implying by his words there are serious issues at home and some one could read into that. That could impact my job as I advise lots of people on a daily basis in high risk job (can’t say which industry as it will give me away)

I’m glad you are pursuing the data protection issue.

Of course it’s defamatory to say that you’ve had “incidents at home”, though I personally think the discrimination and data protection issues are more important in a place of work.

Good luck with working through this, and remember that his behaviour reflects on him, not you.

Sorry but that is total bs .I have two high functioning asd teens and one is exceptionally clever and the other finds it harder but it certainly does not impact in the way you are implying it must be, to be autistic .

@DumboHimalayan I missed to quote you in my post .I noticed you were really rude to another poster when they said the same. I totally get autism is a spectrum, I was a team leader in supported living with adults with autism some non verbal. And for people's dignity they are incontinence pads , not nappies. Babies wear nappies .Neuro diverse people are not babies 🙄

can the charity commission remove him from post? This would be ideal

You have to show serious harm for a defamation claim. I don't think you'd get very far.

If you're a trading body for profit you also have to show a substantial (or likely substantial) monetary loss.

His behaviour is horrific but defamation is not the way to go.

Jack Monroe successfully sued Katie Hopkins for serious harm for the following:

Katie Hopkins mistook Jack Monroe for Laurie Penny, and thus accused Jack of being in favour of vandalising war memorials. Monroe corrected her and demanded she delete it and issue a correction. Hopkins deleted it and alluded to a correction with something like "what's the difference between them anyway, they're both social anthrax". Hopkins eventually issued a correction.

Hopkins tweets were viewed hundreds of times. Jack Monroe claimed to have suffered severe online abuse as a result of Hopkins tweets, which she wasn't able to substantiate (mainly because it didn't happen).

In contrast, OP is the trustee of a charity, and therefore very prominent in its community. She has been branded as having a developmental disability that she doesn't have, and as having difficulties in her home life: both things that falsely make her appear to be vulnerable. The chair has refused to issue a correction, and is overtly punishing OP, thus making her look unhinged and a liar. He is also excluding her from being able to participate in her role, which effectively prevents her from having any ability to influence her own reputation within the group she works with.

The reputational damage to OP is much more tangible and easy to prove, and the personal cost to her much higher than for Jack Monroe. And Jack still won.

Lawsuit can be based on monetarily loss or psychological distress caused by it. I believe you should sent him a letter of intent to sue via a solicitor which will notify him that the lawsuit will be filed if the demands are not met of deleing and inaccurate information and apologising. Most people if they are wrong should back down by this itself.
Even doctors are not allowed to disclose a patients medical records without their permission unless in rare circumstances. This should come under slander and he would not be able to prove his point.

Not slander it's a libel case because he had published inaccurate information in writing.

"Really rude"? In what way? Could you quote it and explain the rudeness to me? One of the ways in which my autism affects me day to day is that my interpretation of what is "rude" can be different from my culture's norms, so I'm genuinely unable to work out what it is you're interpreting as rudeness. Thanks ☺️

I'm afraid it's just a fact that in order to receive a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder that meets the international criteria, then impairments (or "deficits", if you prefer, though to me that's no better) must be identified, and they must be substantial enough to affect day-to-day functioning. The assessors might soft-soap it for you, but that's why it's a diagnosable condition for which people are entitled to reasonable adjustments.