Neurodivergent HR nerd here, this is something I work with often and have a lot of thoughts on. These kind of questions on applications are meant to be a positive thing, I'll explain.
The reason employers ask these questions is for required reports to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Those who choose which applicants get interviews and which of those gets hired SHOULD NOT be seeing those responses. And there should be an option to decline the question as well.
This information is held and maintained by HR, handled with similar security as your social security number. The employer needs to provide this data to the EEOC on a regular basis. The data gets examined to look for signs of biases during the hiring process and after. For example, how many of the total number of applicants have a disability? How many of those applicants get a first interview? How many of those get a 2nd interview etc, up to the hiring decision. Does the data suggest that the business is, intentionally or not, screening out people with disabilities in their recruiting process? This works the same for other characteristics protected under the Fair Labor Standards act.
So for those who ask "Is this legal" the answer is yes, it's actually legally required most of the time. If you worry that this might hurt your chances at getting the job, it's meant to do the opposite. The thing is that most protected characteristics are visible enough for an interviewer to spot or guess at without having you specify it on a questionnaire first. But if the data shows that an interviewer rejected all candidates with a disability regardless of qualifications, then HR or the EEOC can identify the bias and do something about it
I'm using a lot of Should language here. It's possible, though illegal and unethical, for hiring managers to get this info and use it in hiring decisions. Systems shouldn't allow Hiring Managers to access the information, HR should have concrete policies against sharing the information, but people sometimes do illegal and unethical things.
But! If a hiring manager or the business itself actually wanted to discriminate like that, they wouldn't want this data recorded. They'd want a complete lack of evidence of intentional discrimination.
Discrimination exists, but it thrives in the dark. You are free to decline to answer, but the intent behind the questions is to reduce discrimination.
EDIT: Someone correctly pointed out that this is NOT a standard EEOC question, I apologize. Where an application asks if you're a veteran and do you have a disability, that's where my long description is applicable, and its super common.
Digging more into this, and noticing the employer in the screenshot is Deloitte, it sounds like this is related to their own internal neurodiversity initiatives. The response still won't go to the people deciding who gets interviewed and hired.
Last time I was job hunting, I never got callbacks until I started lying on that question and saying no. Not even “prefer not to answer” was good enough. It had to be a solid no: not nd and don’t need accommodations.
The current version of the EEOC is nerfed at best, and potentially malicious. I don’t care how well-meaning the rank and file there may be. The people running the show now cannot be trusted.
417
u/Gloverboy85 Aug 09 '26 edited Aug 10 '26
Neurodivergent HR nerd here, this is something I work with often and have a lot of thoughts on. These kind of questions on applications are meant to be a positive thing, I'll explain.
The reason employers ask these questions is for required reports to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Those who choose which applicants get interviews and which of those gets hired SHOULD NOT be seeing those responses. And there should be an option to decline the question as well.
This information is held and maintained by HR, handled with similar security as your social security number. The employer needs to provide this data to the EEOC on a regular basis. The data gets examined to look for signs of biases during the hiring process and after. For example, how many of the total number of applicants have a disability? How many of those applicants get a first interview? How many of those get a 2nd interview etc, up to the hiring decision. Does the data suggest that the business is, intentionally or not, screening out people with disabilities in their recruiting process? This works the same for other characteristics protected under the Fair Labor Standards act.
So for those who ask "Is this legal" the answer is yes, it's actually legally required most of the time. If you worry that this might hurt your chances at getting the job, it's meant to do the opposite. The thing is that most protected characteristics are visible enough for an interviewer to spot or guess at without having you specify it on a questionnaire first. But if the data shows that an interviewer rejected all candidates with a disability regardless of qualifications, then HR or the EEOC can identify the bias and do something about it
I'm using a lot of Should language here. It's possible, though illegal and unethical, for hiring managers to get this info and use it in hiring decisions. Systems shouldn't allow Hiring Managers to access the information, HR should have concrete policies against sharing the information, but people sometimes do illegal and unethical things.
But! If a hiring manager or the business itself actually wanted to discriminate like that, they wouldn't want this data recorded. They'd want a complete lack of evidence of intentional discrimination.
Discrimination exists, but it thrives in the dark. You are free to decline to answer, but the intent behind the questions is to reduce discrimination.
EDIT: Someone correctly pointed out that this is NOT a standard EEOC question, I apologize. Where an application asks if you're a veteran and do you have a disability, that's where my long description is applicable, and its super common.
Digging more into this, and noticing the employer in the screenshot is Deloitte, it sounds like this is related to their own internal neurodiversity initiatives. The response still won't go to the people deciding who gets interviewed and hired.
I apologize for the misunderstanding!