Leah Francis is a 39-year-old autistic woman seeking legal advice regarding a potential human rights complaint after experiencing repeated discrimination in her workplace.
Leah is highly skilled, detail-oriented, and successful in structured environments; however, as an autistic person, she experiences challenges with sensory overload, abrupt communication styles, unpredictable changes in routine, and environments with excessive noise or stimulation. Leah communicates best when information is presented clearly, directly, and at a measured pace. She often requires additional processing time during conversations and benefits from written summaries of important information. Bright lighting, overlapping conversations, crowded spaces, and frequent interruptions can quickly become overwhelming and impact her ability to process information and advocate for herself effectively.
Approximately one year ago, Leah was promoted to a Research Lead position. Around this time, she disclosed that she was autistic and requested workplace accommodations to support her transition into the role.
Her requested accommodations included clear written instructions, advance notice of schedule or meeting changes, flexibility to attend virtual meetings when overwhelmed, a quieter workspace, and communication practices that allowed for additional processing time. Despite these reasonable requests, Leah’s disclosure was met with resistance and misunderstanding.
Following her disclosure, Leah experienced repeated discrimination from colleagues and supervisors. Co-workers mocked her communication style, described her as “awkward,” and excluded her from informal workplace interactions. Supervisors characterized her as “too sensitive,” “difficult,” and “hard to work with” when she requested clarification or expressed concerns about workplace communication. Although Leah had consistently excelled in her previous role, management placed her on a three-month probationary period shortly after her disclosure, excluded her from professional development opportunities, and later placed her on unpaid leave due to concerns about her “fit” within the workplace culture.
After encouragement from a family member, Leah books a consultation with your law firm to better understand her legal options.
Upon arriving at the office, Leah immediately feels overwhelmed by the environment. The waiting area is crowded and noisy, with phones ringing constantly, overlapping conversations between staff and clients, fluorescent lighting, and music playing in the background. The reception desk is disorganized, staff move quickly through the space without acknowledging her, and no one is available to greet or assist her upon arrival. Uncertain where to sit or what to expect next, Leah becomes increasingly anxious and overstimulated.
When the consultation begins, the lawyer moves quickly through intake questions and frequently interrupts Leah while she attempts to explain her experiences. The lawyer relies heavily on legal terminology to explain limitation periods, evidentiary requirements, and procedural steps without checking whether Leah understands the information being provided. Leah struggles to process the rapid pace of the conversation and becomes increasingly overwhelmed when multiple questions are asked at once. Although Leah communicates more effectively when given time to process information and respond thoughtfully, the lawyer interprets her pauses and hesitations as uncertainty or lack of credibility.
As the meeting progresses, the lawyer shifts the discussion toward whether pursuing a complaint would be “worth it” given the emotional investment involved. At no point before or during the consultation is Leah asked about accessibility needs, communication preferences, sensory considerations, or supports that may help her navigate the meeting or legal process. The lawyer does not offer written materials, alternative communication methods, breaks, or a quieter meeting space.
Leah leaves the consultation feeling discouraged, emotionally exhausted, and uncertain about her legal options. Overwhelmed by both the inaccessible environment and the complexity of the legal process, she questions whether her experiences were fully understood or taken seriously. The interaction reinforces her concern that legal systems may not be designed to meaningfully accommodate autistic individuals, particularly those navigating intersecting barriers related to disability, gender, and Indigeneity.
Discussion Questions:
- What accessibility barriers did Leah experience?
- What assumptions may have influenced the interaction?
- How could the lawyer have better supported Leah?
- What accessibility measures could have improved the consultation?