To find it ridiculous that my work is encouraging those with neurodivergence to add details of their neurodivergence to their email signatures “so colleagues can accommodate your needs?”

[SnugShaker]

I get the intention behind it but it just feels like an uncomfortable and unnecessary step. Why should employees be expected to disclose their neurodivergence in a public way, especially when it could lead to unwanted assumptions or even stigma? There’s a line between creating an inclusive environment and putting the burden of disclosure on individuals, and it seems like this might be crossing that line. Shouldn’t accommodations be handled in a more private, respectful way without having to broadcast personal information?

Cognitive differences are not the only disabilities though are they? Not the only things that an employer has to make reasonable adjustment for

How would anyone know that unless they had just sent you an email?

I wouldnt remember everyone's requests like that, how would I know Sally needs a teams message to steel herself for the call

Or better still, rather than requiring others to change their behaviour, its surely easy to not answer the phone but then message a minute later to say, I wasnt at my desk but am here now if you still need me, they can then ring again

Or better still what normally happens is that they say 'oh no, its ok now, thanks'

I think there is a level of cruelty in encouraging this type of exposure. It is pretending the world is a kind and non-judgemental place. Until the boss is signing off about his prostrate issues and needing to nip to the loo during long meetings (or something equivalent), no one should be making public declarations like this.

You've misunderstood. The company wanted him out. They suspended him and ended up paying an eye-watering amount of money to get him to walk away rather than risk an Employment Tribunal. Lots of small companies like the one he worked for, maybe 70 employees, don't have highly skilled HR people to call on, they just want the problem sorted quickly and, in this case, very expensively.

Just to be clear, no one has any idea of whether my relative is actually autistic or not. He might be, or he may just be a difficult, prickly sort of man.

In PSHE we tell pupils that they should not share personal stories or information in front of the class (obviously they can tell their friends whatever they like) because it frequently leads to bullying. It is often the children with social issues who overshare without realising they are exposing themselves to ridicule from the nastier members of the class. Adults in the work place can be just as nasty as children and teenagers.

What sort of accommodations are the company expecting the recipients of the emails to make?

Is it along the lines of “I have dyscalculia” (implying - so the figures I sent you might be wrong)?

I’m struggling to think what accommodations for ND it would be reasonable to expect people to make on an individual interaction basis specifically for individuals with ND (especially without any training) rather than simply requiring everyone to be tolerant of a wide range of interaction styles regardless of cause?

These preferences aren't limited to ND though.

I agree that it's useful to know, but I think framing it as ND is actually not useful. Let's say John and Sally both prefer calls to emails, and Sally and Ben are both autistic - but Ben prefers emails.

Sally puts that she has autism and prefers calls in her signature. Now Ben gets more calls from people who assume he's the same as Sally!

Apart from it being Special Category data, there's also always going to be a time when John NEEDS to email Ben.

I try and tailor my comms to the audience (and I've always found comms training to be super helpful to any organisation), but at some point I'm going to need to speak to all audiences at once, and they need to make the effort to listen.

I haven’t at all. Regardless of HR support you have to know you can’t bully people then use a disability as an excuse for this? That doesn’t wash in an ET.

ET payouts are capped at a very much not eye watering amount so they could’ve just risked it if paying him off was that expensive

Exactly this. It's unreasonable for the employer to put this on all of their employees.

Everybody should be tolerant of a wide range of interaction styles regardless of cause.

If I put on my email signature
Autistic

That wouldn't stop people reading my straight to the point emails, blunt, with no fluff and reading it and thinking "wow what a bitch" for not putting stupid fluffy fillers like, greatest wonderous of mornings to you all, I hope this email finds you well and full of positivity like a rising spring sun, I cheerily look foward to your most gracious reply and heartily appreciate the time it has taken you to type an email at 2 letters per second, it must really be a strenuous task asking you to commit to this professional obligation of cooperation, so I have also included a blood sacrifice, and a £50 just eat voucher, for not instead saying "Janet, can you send me this quarters forecast by 2pm please, Jimmyneutronsforehead - Autistic."

I do have a mental list of people for whom a sign-off saying 'I am a completely textbook Narcissist and Sociopath' would not be entirely surprising, tbh.

Don't suppose those sort of diagnoses are the ones the employer wishes to see, are they?

Exactly. Also, it will likely be really harmful to the people who have less socially acceptable forms of neurodivergence or severe mental illness. ADHD, dyslexia, low support needs autism - probably safe(ish) to declare. Bipolar, schizophrenia, EUPD - very terrible idea.

There is an irony in the privilege of more palatable neurodivergence and the reality of how stigmatised and misunderstood serious mental illness is.

Whenever I read of these sorts of ideas, I do wonder how you deal with people lying ?

ET s aren’t capped in disability tribunals.

Should we add religious beliefs so the respondent does not add “Merry Christmas!” as a sign-off when the recipient is Jewish?

Maybe I should add that I’m childless-not-by-choice so that I don’t get Mother’s Day comments or mentionings of school holidays.

Employers can’t use disability as an excuse at all. The OP’s employer sounds as though they are completely unaware of the Equality Act 2010. No employee has to declare a disability even if it’s an obvious one. There’s a fine line between encouragement and coercion and it sounds as though they’re sailing close to the wind. And there is no cap on employment tribunal payouts where disability is concerned, so no, ‘risking it’ wouldn’t have been a good idea.

The OP’s employer sounds as though they are completely unaware of the Equality Act 2010.

They took the finest advice ChatGPT had to offer.

But what happens if the sender is also ND and prefers a different format to you?

In that instance they should use delayed / scheduled sending.

I find this interesting as I prefer to disclose things . My work coach (UC) has now instructed me NOT to disclose any of my medical or other issues at interview stage as it is apparently a barrier to me getting employed 🤦

You don't have to be mad to work here but it helps.

It’s not the employer using disability as an excuse, it’s the person who was accused of bullying.

having a disability doesn’t excuse you from disciplinary action from bullying.

Of course there is nuance to this-
was it bullying? Accusations of bullying are thrown around employers everyday.

Is it behaviour that can be attributed to the confines of a disability? I find this unlikely, - what behaviour that meets the criteria of bullying can be attributed to a disability?

Misjudging how to land a joke can be attributed to a disability but is unlikely to be considered bullying.
A Tourette’s sufferer calling a colleague a cunt can be attributed to a disability but is again, unlikely to be considered bullying.

what sustained, deliberate and targeted harmful behaviour can be excused by a disability?

what the posters relative is saying is “I bullied someone but I’m ND so I couldn’t help it”

they are not saying my employer discriminated against me because I’m disabled. They are saying they are allowed to behave like that because they are disabled.

that is not the behavior we want to support in the workplace and a tribunal wouldn’t support it either.

but of course, as I said at the beginning, we don’t know the situation in full and it will always have nuance.

Can you give an example of how this is expected to work in practice @SnugShaker ?

I just can't even fathom how something as nuanced as this can be added to your email signature 😮

I think it's stupid on so many levels.

My assumption would be it's voluntary, if not that's a problem, but I don't think that's really the most serious issue.

All it is going to do is create an environment where people feel they can ask other people, with their own work to do, to spend their time figuring out how other people can manage their jobs.

I am in practice happy to try and arrange people's jobs to work with their personal circumstances, be that issues with quiet or spelling (that's me actually) or the fact thatt hey suffer terrible piles as someone mentioned above.

But I think there is still a fundamental responsibility for the employee to handle their own work and not put the need to adapt off on to all the other workers.

Creating a culture where we can make excuses, even to ourselves, for not pulling our weight, is not going to be a good thing long term. It will not be very long before it will be a large proportion of workers asking people to start meetings when they want, use the writing format they prefer, and a dozen other things.

We all have challenges, many of them serious. I am a shitty speller, which comes up a lo in my work as I produce documents for the public. I am afraid to perform in public which is also a significant part of my job. I dislike confrontation, again, part of my role. I am really terrible at keeping schedules in my mind, but i manage a team and often have to adjust them on the fly. I deal with all these inadequacy in my person in various ways so I can do my job, I don't ask others to put up with them.

Me too, I thought if they are comfortable stating that then fair dos to them.

I'm clearly missing something. Person A adds that she is neurodiverse on her signature as per HR pressure.

Colleague B now knows she is neurodiverse. What is Colleague B meant to do with this information?