Is this discrimination?

[wheresmymojo]

I applied for an internal promotion at work. I could do the job standing on my head, blindfolded with my hands tied behind my back.

I did really well in the first two stages and the hiring manager seemed really lovely and I got good vibes.

While she was on holiday I had a final 'informal chat' with her manager (Director) and one of her peers.

I wasn't successful.

The feedback was that I did really well and that there was nothing they could give me as feedback to improve on other than 'I wasn't as succinct in my answers as the other candidates'.

I have recently been diagnosed with ADHD, and this is one of the symptoms. I'm completely open about this at work and am noted as such on my HR record (but my interviewers wouldn't have known as they're in a different office).

I am able to be succinct when I can have a tiny bit of time to prepare (so, for example, I know I can answer competency based questions well as I'm prepared for that) but depending on my dopamine levels I can chat on for a bit too long if I'm talking off the top of my head.

In the internal process to submit an application it asks you what your pronouns are but there's nowhere to say that you have any kind of disability or neurodiversity or to ask for any reasonable adjustments.

I could have told my interviewers but honestly without being asked it feels awkward and there's also the worry that disclosing will lead to stigma and impact your application.

Obviously I don't blame the interviewers themselves as they aren't mind readers but I feel really pissed off about the whole internal process

For context this is one of 3 or 4 things that have happened that have left me feeling very unhappy on a similar topic (I can share if it's relevant).

More context - this is a FTSE listed company that massively sells itself on diversity.

Is this indirect indiscrimination by not thinking about disabilities and ND in the internal recruitment process?

It's asked of external applicants, and like I said they ask about your pronouns so it seems like a massive oversight to me...

Why doesn’t HR know about you having a disability? Presumably that would have been on your initial application so they wouldn’t need to ask about disabilities on the internal application because, even if you had become disabled after being employed, say by accident, surely it’s something you would let them know about?

I don’t think you can say they are discriminating about a disability they don’t know you have. They can’t make reasonable adjustments for something you needed reasonable adjustments for but they don’t know about.

HR do know...I've had occ health assessments and everything.

But the HR people who do this are different to the HR people involved in recruitment.

I feel like that shouldn't be my problem though...that the internal application should ask about anything the interviewers might need to be aware of in the area where it asks for my pronouns.

I don't think you need to bring the pronouns thing into it; it distracts from the issue in hand, which is that they didn't ask internal candidates if they had any requirements for reasonable adjustments for the interview, is that right? But they do ask external candidates? Sorry, just wanted to clarify.

Yes, that's correct.

They ask external candidates whether they need any reasonable adjustments.

They don't ask internal candidates.

You didn't get the job, as a result of something that is a symptom of your disability - but they didn't know you have the disability. That's indirect discrimination, in a nutshell.

I would have raised it before the interview personally; what adjustments do you have in place for people like me... It will be a lot more awkward after the event! But I'd be asking HR for an informal chat to give them some constructive feedback about internal hiring processes in the first place, and see how they react to having the indirect discrimination pointed out to them...

ADHD is not automatically a disability though. Very little is. So having ADHD does not mean you have a disability. You must have a long term condition which has a substantial impact on daily living - that means that it must take you a lot longer to be able to do something compared to an average person. You described it as needing "a tiny bit of time" to answer more succinctly - but lots of people need a tiny bit more time to be more succinct than others. So are you certain that this is (a) a disability within the meaning of the Act, and (b) that a reasonable adjustment of a tiny bit more time is actually reasonable? I'm not saying either way - simply pointing out that it is not as clear cut as "I have a disability" (you may or may not have one in law) or "this is an adjustment I want so it is reasonable". Are you quite certain that if you had been offered a tiny bit more time you would have got the job - interviewers often don't give full or entirely accurate feedback, so you should consider whether you were simply outclassed on the day.

I do think it ought to be standard practice to ask about adjustment for all candidates, so I do agree with you that it should have been done. But I'd just caution that there are ways and means of raising such issues (like, before the interview / decision?) because you need to be careful that you don't, at this point in time, come across as saying that you didn't get the job because of your disability. As you point out, they didn't know, had no reason to know, but if they get the impression that you accuse people of discrimination when you are unsuccessful in interviews, that doesn't mean you'll get the job next time - it could mean they will find a better reason to tell you why you didn't get it.

I think it’s possible that another candidate impressed them even more than you?

It sucks but it’s the most common reason, I was pipped for a job I thought was in the bag but the successful candidate knew more about a bit part of the role and could hit the ground running quicker than me. They try to strike the balance between being positive in their feedback and giving advice I suppose.

I don’t know though, it is tricky and you know how adhd affects you more than us. I don’t know a lot about it. Sorry @wheresmymojo maybe can you ask for more detailed feedback from them?

I think it’s possible that another candidate impressed them even more than you?

Well - yes, obviously 🙄

The point is though that the OP has a specific medical condition that affects her and had she had reasonable adjustments, she might have impressed them even even more. She didn't get that opportunity because HR, despite being aware, did not consider any such adjustments. The feedback she has had is directly related to the effect that her condition has on her.

The fact that they were more impressed by another candidate is obvious. It is not obvious that had the OP been on a level playing field, the other candidate would still have been more impressive - maybe they would. But the recruiter cannot know that, because the playing field wasn't level!

I disagree. If they can be inclusive with pronouns, which are a choice, then they should damn well be inclusive with a disability/neurodiversity which is absolutely NOT a choice

@LordEmsworth oh I’m sorry, am
i not allowed to give my opinion?

If I’m allowed to reply. Flag it to HR that you are disabled and didn’t get a fair shot at the interview as the delightful pp say above.

@AhaLyn It's not your opinion though is it, it's a fact... The OP literally said it in her OP.

The idea that the OP should just suck it up because the other person is better - well that is your opinion, I happen to think it's unfair. Where I work, if you tell HR in advance that you have a neurodiverse condition, they insist that you accept reasonable adjustments even if you say you don't need them; they are scrupulous about ensuring that everyone has an even chance.

It is possible that with the adjustments, the panel might still have thought the other candidate was better. The OP will never know - however much feedback she asks for.

How do you know that the adjustments are reasonable? Nobody here can say that they are or they aren't. If the job requires succinct verbalisation "off the top of one's head" (and some jobs do) then the request isn't reasonable. Just because one has a disability doesn't mean that one gets what one wants / needs. That is why the right is to reasonable adjustments, not just a right to adjustments.

The issue really is that HR / recruitment processes slipped up because they didn't ask the question. It shouldn't need pointing out that this is standard recruitment practice whether recruitment is internal or external. Whether they should have given the adjustment is a very different matter.

And personally I would be just as concerned about an employer / HR insisted that I needed adjustments even though I said I didn't. That is patronising and insulting, in the "does she take sugar" category. Other people should not be making the decision as to whether someone needs adjustments when they have said they don't want them.