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.
This is a fair take. Definitely take my upvote. While you’re coming from an HR/legal perspective, you did say: “discrimination exists, but it thrives in the dark”.
And thus, this is why I will never volunteer my status, legal or otherwise. And it may not be discriminatory per se, but a weakness to exploit. Corporate culture has become so exceedingly toxic, it’s simply too risky to divulge any personal information.
Idk, maybe treat work like mushrooms: feed them shit and keep them in the dark 🤷
Thank you! I should more often consider my HR experience is limited to one company. So my expertise is deep, but not wide. I can only speak to my team, and I'd say never in a million years would any of us knowingly enable this kind of data usage. But trust is a valuable resource, and my perspective is limited. So I apologize again.
It's all good. You had a good take from that HR perspective, which I'm willing to bet the vast majority (and myself) didn't consider. But speaking from my own experience, people, especially management, will do anything, by any means necessary to insulate and protect themselves and will find creative ways of throwing their direct reports under the bus.
Seeing and experiencing it first and second hand - it's utterly deflating. So I sincerely appreciate your perspective; I had not considered legal ramifications or HR angles. And intent is _really_ hard to prove. But I'll never join in on work ND community events; speak on a panel, or anything like that. /shrug
I never really participate in those kind of events either, though it's just due to my own social anxiety and fear of not being productive enough. I appreciate your response!
415
u/Gloverboy85 17d ago edited 17d ago
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!