Autism Speaks Sued for Discriminatory Treatment Based on Disability
Note: Below is a legal complaint filed by Simone Greggs against Autism Speaks.
"...Over the course of two months, Plaintiff was given five different interviews with various officials of the Defendant and was finally told that they wanted to hire her for employment and was given an acceptance letter. Plaintiff then told Defendants that her son is Autistic and attends a special school, and on Wednesdays the school lets out early so she would like to be able to come into the office early that day so that she could leave early and get home in time for her son. Defendants told her that it would not be possible to do so. Plaintiff then made other arrangements and was able to retain a babysitter for her son for that day. Defendants then rescinded the employment offer. When Plaintiff asked why, Defendants wouldn’t tell her and then blurred out a derogatory remark."
You can read the complaint in pdf format HERE.
TO THIS HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN:
COMES NOW, Plaintiff Simone Greggs, as and for her complaint in this action against Defendant Autism Speaks hereby alleges as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
- Plaintiff Simone Greggs is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Prince George’s County, Maryland. She has claims of discriminatory treatment and breach of contract as a result of conduct by the Defendant that interferes with her right to be employed based on a disability.
NATURE OF THE CLAIMS
- This is an action for declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief, as well as monetary damages, to redress Defendant's unlawful employment practices and retaliation against Plaintiff, including Defendant's unlawful discrimination and retaliation against Plaintiff because of her child’s disabilities, and because of her repeated complaints about such unlawful discrimination and retaliation, in violation of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("Section 1981"); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. ("Title [*2] VII"); and the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. ("ADA").
- Over the course of two months, Plaintiff was given five different interviews with various officials of the Defendant and was finally told that they wanted to hire her for employment and was given an acceptance letter. Plaintiff then told Defendants that her son is Autistic and attends a special school, and on Wednesdays the school lets out early so she would like to be able to come into the office early that day so that she could leave early and get home in time for her son. Defendants told her that it would not be possible to do so. Plaintiff then made other arrangements and was able to retain a babysitter for her son for that day. Defendants then rescinded the employment offer. When Plaintiff asked why, Defendants wouldn’t tell her and then blurred out a derogatory remark. When Plaintiff tried to contact the CEO, Defendants threatened a harassment suit on the Plaintiff.
- Defendant's conduct was knowing, malicious, willful and wanton and showed a reckless disregard for Plaintiff, which has caused and continues to cause Plaintiff to suffer substantial economic and non-economic damages, permanent harm to her professional and personal reputation, and severe mental anguish and emotional distress.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
- The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, as this action involves federal questions regarding the deprivation of Plaintiff's civil rights under Title VII, Section 1981 and the ADA. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's related claims arising under state and local law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
- Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action, including the unlawful employment practices alleged herein, occurred in this district.
PARTIES
- Plaintiff Simone Greggs is a citizen of the United States, residing in Prince George’s County, Maryland who is the caretaker of a child with a disability. She was a potential employee for Autism Speaks yet was rescinded the employment offer due to the fact that she was having issues with daycare for her son who has Autism even though the issue was resolved.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
- Plaintiff has complied with all statutory prerequisites to filing this action.
- On or about May 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Verified Complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (EEOC) charging Defendant with unlawful discriminatory employment practices because of disability issues.
- Any and all other prerequisites to the filing of this suit have been met.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
- Simone Greggs is a 44 year old, hard working single parent to two children one of which is a child who suffers from Autism. She has worked for several non-profit organizations successfully conducting fund raising and event planning for several years one which includes the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights. She was always a conscientious and reliable employee who at all times performs her duties in an exemplary manner and got along well with her colleagues and employers.
- After becoming laid off from the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights due to budget cuts, Ms. Greggs had been out of work for over 18 months.
- In the beginning of March 2012, Ms. Greggs applied to the Walk Events Manager position at Autisms Speaks.
- On March 26, 2012, Ms. Greggs was contacted by the Director of Talent Acquisitions, Ms. Pat DeSaules in order to have a preliminary interview and a discussion about the position.
- On March 27, 2012, Ms. Greggs was moved forward in the interviewing process and had a telephone interview with the Executive Director, Ms. Ann Gibbons.
- On April 3, 2012, Ms. Greggs was again moved forward in the interviewing process and then had a face to face interview with the Executive Director, Ms. Ann Gibbons.
- On April 5, 2012, Once again, Ms. Greggs was moved forward in the interviewing process and had a phone interview with the Regional Director, Ms. Tracey Wilbanks.
- On April 11, 2012, Ms. Greggs then met and interviewed with Ms. Susan Pereles and met with the staff at the Washington, DC office.
- On April 13, 2012, Ms. Greggs was given an offer for employment contingent on passing the background check and drug test. An offer letter was emailed to her where she sign and faxed back to the organization.
- On April 16, 2012, Ms. Greggs had received the “New Hire” paperwork and was told that she had until April 19, 2012 to complete and return.
- On April 19, 2012, Ms. Greggs had asked for an extension in order to complete the paperwork since it was so extensive, it was then granted.
- On April 23, 2012, Ms. Greggs had received an email stating that she had passed the background check and the drug test and was given a start date of May 7, 2012.
- On May 6, 2012, Ms. Greggs had contacted Ms. Ann Gibbons regarding an issue that she had regarding her Autistic son dealing with daycare on Wednesdays since her son gets home from school early. Ms. Greggs proposed several solutions which included working from home or allowing her to come in very early so that she may leave early, or even taking a pay cut. Ms. Gibbons denied the ability to work from home, however, allowed Ms. Greggs to delay her start day one week in order to get the situation resolved.
- On the same day, May 6, 2012, Ms. Greggs had resolved her daycare issue and didn’t need the adjustment. Ms. Gibbons emailed back and was glad to hear that it had been resolved and told her that she looks forward to her starting.
- On May 7, 2012, a conference call took place with Ms. Greggs, which included, Ms. Gibbons, Ms. DeSaules, Ms. Wilbanks, and Ms. LePage, stating that they were rescinding the employment offer because they did not want to make any accommodations for the care of her Autistic child.
- On May 8, 2012, Ms. Greggs filed a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, based on Title I of the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. (1990), which prohibits discriminatory hiring and personnel practices by employers against “qualified individuals with disabilities,” and requires employers to make “reasonable” efforts to accommodate individuals mental or physical limitations, as long as the accommodations do not present an undue hardship to the employer. This law also protects people from discrimination based on their relationship with a person with a disability, even if they do not themselves have a disability, i.e. child with disability. Autism Speaks clearly violated the law.
- Ms. Greggs had declined an employment opportunity with the Democratic National Committee which was presented towards her at the end of April because Autism Speaks had offered her a position with them that she had accepted.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
- Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 33, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.
- Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her child’s disability by denying her reasonable accommodations in order to perform the job and to take care of her Autistic child.
- As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful and discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continue to suffer severe mental anguish and emotional distress, including but not limited to depression, humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-confidence, emotional pain and suffering, as well as physical injury, for which she is entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief.
- Defendant's unlawful and discriminatory conduct was outrageous and malicious, was intended to injure Plaintiff, and was done with conscious disregard of Plaintiff's civil rights, entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
- Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 37, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.
- Defendant violated its duty under the ADA to provide Plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation for her disabilities when it denied Plaintiff's request for the reasonable accommodation identified by Plaintiff for a modified work schedule, failed and refused to engage in discussion with Plaintiff regarding her need for an accommodation, and/or failed and refused to engage in discussion with Plaintiff regarding the potential provision of alternative accommodations after repeatedly denying Plaintiff's request for the accommodation identified by Plaintiff.
- As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's violation of its duty of reasonable accommodation under the ADA, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer harm for which she is entitled to an award of damages.
- Defendant's unlawful conduct constitutes a knowing, malicious, willful and wanton violation of the ADA for which Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
- Plaintiff hereby repeats and realleges each and every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 41, inclusive, as if fully set forth herein.
- Defendant offered Plaintiff employment with their organization on April 13, 2012 in which Plaintiff had accepted.
- On April 16, 2012, Defendant sent Plaintiff a “New Hire” packet in which Plaintiff signed contract and sent it back to the Human Resources department.
- On April 23, 2012, Defendant gave Plaintiff a “Start Date” of May 7, 2012.
- On May 7, 2012, Defendant had breach the contract by rescinding the employment offer.
- As a proximate result of Defendants' breaches, Plaintiffs have suffered compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendant, containing the following relief:
A. A declaratory judgment that the actions, conduct and practices of Defendant complained of herein violate the laws of the United States and the District of Columbia;
B. An injunction and order permanently restraining Defendant from engaging in such unlawful conduct;
C. An order directing Defendant to take such affirmative action as is necessary to ensure that the effects of these unlawful employment practices are eliminated and do not continue to be practiced when determining employment;
D. An award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, to compensate Plaintiff for all monetary and/or economic harm;
E. An award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, to compensate Plaintiff for harm to her professional and personal reputations and loss of career fulfillment;
F. An award of damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, to compensate Plaintiff for all non-monetary and/or compensatory harm, including but not limited to, compensation for her mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, emotional pain and suffering, emotional distress and physical injuries;
G. An award of damages for any and all other monetary and/or non-monetary losses suffered by Plaintiff in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest;
H. An award of punitive damages;
I. An award of costs that Plaintiff has incurred in this action, as well as Plaintiff's reasonable attorneys' fees to the fullest extent permitted by law; and
J. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues of fact and damages stated herein.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Simone L. Greggs
219 Red Jade Drive
Upper Marlboro, MD 20774
240-695-2629
VERIFICATION
I, Simone Greggs, am a plaintiff in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed in the District of Columbia.
____________________________________
STATE OF MARYLAND
I, ______________________________________________, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, do hereby certify that Simone Greggs personally appeared before me this day, and acknowledged the due execution of the foregoing Complaint; that the said Simone Greggs stated that she signed the same freely and voluntarily, without fear or compulsion of any person; and that he voluntarily assents thereto.
Witness my hand and seal this ______ day of ___________, 2012.
_____________________________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:_____________________
Is Autism Speaks really this stupid? You refuse to hire someone because her son is autistic, something YOU'RE supposed to HELP with. I hope you lose everything; you have replaced PETA as my most hated organization.
Posted by: Haley | May 08, 2015 at 02:28 AM
"Autism will never have a cure and Autism Speaks helps people realize that fact."
Also add to that statement that austism will never have a cause either and you have summed up that organization brillantly!
Posted by: Benedetta | January 04, 2013 at 08:43 PM
This story is bunk and the case is bunk. Actually most of the employees of Autism Speaks have direct reason to work with them like a child or family member with Autism. That is why I help with their events.
I hope this site is quick to post the result of this case just as they are to post the filing.
Most of the comments here are unfounded and flat not true. Autism Speaks does a lot of great work to help families cope and manage their kids. Autism will never have a cure and Autism Speaks helps people realize that fact.
Posted by: Sarah Winther | January 04, 2013 at 02:55 PM
Humaniti;
Did they kick you off and cookie you so you could not just go there and just read but not even comment or blog?
That is what they did to me at Joe's Kawasakis Website.
Posted by: Benedetta | August 12, 2012 at 10:54 PM
It's hard to find words to describe these fake organisations & websites that actively & consciously seek to spread disinformation, attack scientists & doctors with the integrity to tell the truth, set the agenda by limiting debate.
I see them for what they are. They are responsible for the perpetration & cover up of what can only be interpreted as the deliberate poisoning & killing of our children.
Just under 3 years ago, I began to seek information, & possible treatment modalities for my son, Jack & found my way onto LBRB, completely unaware of the existence of undisclosed PHARMA funded groups.
After looking at the information there, I very quickly, I became convinced of a false consensus that all alternative treatments were either dangerous or ineffective & that vaccines hadn't been shown to cause harm.
As a result of their propaganda, I delayed getting treatment for my son by 2 years.
I went back to LBRB today & it is so obviously populated by Pharma rent boys, it is surreal!
I tried to ask them to consider the horror of what they're doing to children like my boy, & to share his ongoing recovery with biomedical treatments...
Like many liars, they don't seem to understand just how transparent they are to sincere parents & scientists & how the time when their house of cards falls is very soon approaching.
When it does so, I for one will be looking to join with others to expose these criminals & hold them accountable for the harm they have caused both in terms of continued vaccinations & denial & suppression of information & treatment of vaccine injured children.
I feel very strongly these crimes against humanity are being deliberately carried out & covered up & it disgusts me.
Posted by: humanati | August 12, 2012 at 08:07 PM
Benedetta,
Per the complaint, Ms. Greggs was accepted for employment on April 23 and was scheduled to start employment on May 7th.
Positions identical to the one Ms. Greggs was applying for, are still posted on the internet, and they clearly indicate a requirement of a working schedule from 9 a.m. to 5 pm.
Instead of discussing whether or not flexibility could be afforded in scheduling during the interview process or immediately after her acceptance of employment on April 23th, Ms. Greggs, waited to inform the employer of her child care issue on May 6th, Sunday, the day before she was scheduled to start working.
The complaint itself seems to contradict itself, in that in the "nature of the claim" section of the complaint it states that "the Plaintiff then made other arrangements and was able to retain a babysitter for her son for that day. Defendants then rescinded the employment offer. When Plaintiff asked why, Defendants wouldn’t tell her and then blurred out a derogatory remark. When Plaintiff tried to contact the CEO, Defendants threatened a harassment suit on the Plaintiff."
But, in the factual allegations per #15, it is stated as follows: "On May 7, 2012, a conference call took place with Ms. Greggs, which included, Ms. Gibbons, Ms. DeSaules, Ms. Wilbanks, and Ms. LePage, stating that they were rescinding the employment offer because they did not want to make any accommodations for the care of her Autistic child."
First it is stated that Autism Speaks did not give a reason for rescinding the employment and then a different account is provided in factual allegation #15 that Autism Speaks provided the reason was that they did not want to make any accommodations for the care of her Autistic Child". And in that factual allegation the alleged "blurred" (which I'm guessing was a typo for blurted) derogatory remark or threat of harassment suit was not even mentioned. There is likely more to that conference call that the employees from autism speaks witnessed, that will be provided during the trial.
Per case law, that I listed in my last post, autism speaks as an employer had the right to refuse accommodations if those accommodations were not reasonable. It is not the employers responsibility to make accommodations for the care of any disabled individual, when part of the requirements of the position are to work a set schedule, per case law that I provided in my previous post.
A very limited account of the conference call was provided in factual allegation #15, on May 7th. It is not stated who called whom, or whether or not the issue was discussed further, before the offer was rescinded.
However, if the decision to rescind the position was based strictly on the events of May 6th, which we don't know at this point, that in itself would likely have been reason enough to rescind the offer, if higher level management discussed the events of May 6th with Ms Gibbons, and determined it was not a responsible action to wait until the weekend on a Sunday before employment to try to negotiate an accommodation in schedule, when the prospective employee knew that a regular working schedule was a requirement of the position from the start of the process, per the job announcement description.
However, since allegation #15 specifically states Autism Speaks was not willing to provide the accommodation, at this point we don't if it was discussed again in the conversation by Ms. Greggs, or whether she made the phone call to discuss the issue again.
It was an intelligent business decision to provide a conference call with a number of Autism Speaks employees, to verify the statements that were made in that conference call. So far all we have is a very limited statement from the Defendant as to what the full nature of that conference call was.
Autism speaks could have avoided the bad press, provided by the accusation, by settling out of court, however they are not selling vehicles, they are providing services to help people, and wouldn't seem reasonable to me to use the funds of supporters, to settle an attempt to sue the organization with this type of allegation, if it is not based on solid legal grounds.
That's the price of running any organization; people will sue, if they feel like their rights have been imposed on, but there are always two sides of the story, one of which has been told so far by the defendant. The way I see it at this point, it's not likely she has a winnable case, even if autism speaks lawyers were not to provide anything other than the evidence that Ms. Greggs has provided so far, along with applicable case law.
Posted by: kate | July 24, 2012 at 12:15 AM
I worked in human resources for awhile. The accommodation has to be reasonable. If I were interviewing her for employment and she waited until after a job offer, after so many interviews, etc., I would really debate whether I really wanted her in the position, too. There is plenty of time to bring up schedule issues, etc., during an interview process that long and I wouldn't be surprised if the interviewing people asked her about meeting the required hours more than once in the process. It sounds like it was a fairly substantial job given her previous history, etc.
A reasonable accommodation is one that does not cost an excessive amount and allows the company to get a reasonable amount of work out of the employee and the employee to meet expectations for the position as advertised. When I became chronically ill I became eligible for disability because I cannot consistently work enough hours to maintain employment. It is unfair to ask an employer to accommodate my needs and unfair to ask me to work without that accommodation. The ADA would not make any employer "keep" me.
I will be interested to see how the case comes out (if it even stays on the radar that long).
Posted by: Momma J | July 23, 2012 at 12:53 PM
Kate-- it says that she asked to be let off a little early on Wednesday, and was denied. She then found a solution to her problem, and was going to be there when they said.
So she could not even ask?
And they got ahold of the fact for the first time that she had a child with autism and terminated the offer.
After five times meeting with her.
Sounds pretty bad
and non millions of people will continue to donate because that is what the American people do - they dish out cash to any organization that claims it has noble goals
Claims, claims, claims, claims.
That is why everybody says wer are a generous people when the truth is we are patsies.
Posted by: Benedetta | July 23, 2012 at 07:06 AM
There appears to be case law that covers this issue, per the ADA, quoted and sourced below:
"No right to accommodations:
In Overley v. Covenant Transportation (6th Cir. April 27, 2006), another court noted the protections are restricted. Unlike a claim brought by a disabled person, an employer is not required to reasonably accommodate an employee based on her association with a disabled person. 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630, App. (§ 1630.8) [footnote]; Den Hartog v. Wasatch Academy, 129 F.3d 1076, 1084-85 (10th Cir. 1997). [See Senate Report at 30; House Labor Report at 61-62; House Judiciary Report at 38-39.] Thus a parent cannot claim that an employer discriminated against her by not granting her sufficient time off or allowing her to modify her schedule so that she could care for her daughter. An employee who cannot meet the attendance requirements of her job is not protected by § 12112(b)(4). See Tyndall v. National Education Centers., Inc. of Cal., 31 F.3d 209, 213 (4th Cir. 1994) (reaching this conclusion by analyzing the statute’s legislative history and governing regulations). Courts have surmised that an employee would be protected under the statute if the employee was only distracted at work, but did not require a reasonable accommodation, Larimer, 370 F.3d at 700, or if the employer’s decision was based solely on an unsubstantiated belief that the employee would have to miss work because of the association, Tyndall, 31 F.3d at 213." Sourced at this link: http://www.stepnowskilaw.com/ADA-Parents.html
In the complaint it was stated that Autism Speaks could not accommodate her autistic child, in changing the schedule, as the schedule required Ms. Gregg to be in attendance at work on a regular basis from 9 am to 5 pm. While Ms. Gregg claims the reason her employment offer was rescinded was because of her disabled child, Autism Speaks has not provided information on their legal defense, however if it was based on a reasonable concern that she would not be able to meet the employer requirement in job attendance, that is within the legal rights of the organization, per case law described above. It's likely the reason there was a conference call, so there would be no question of the circumstances associated with rescinding the employment offer. If Autism Speaks did not pursue this in court, or offered preferential treatment to this potential hire not provided in similar positions, then they would have a problem, as it would potentially set a precedent for preferential treatment, as well as anyone to follow the precedent in hopes to gain a financial settlement out of court in an attempt to sue the organization in a similar circumstance. Autism Speaks appears to have stood their legal ground and are willing to protect their rights as an employer through legal defense rather than settling out of court. It appears that Ms. Gregg may be representing herself in the case, if so, she doesn't have much to lose, by pursuing her claim, per potential attorney fees.
There are some positions in organizations where employees are required to be in the office during normal working hours; an organization cannot afford to reasonably be expected to treat some employees through preferential treatment and not expect to have to treat all other employees in the same manner in similar positions.
Charitable organizations have the same concerns associated with employment issues such as this, as any other organization. They likely have other employees with autistic children that are expected to meet a regular schedule of attendance to meet employment requirements. One really can't expect to go into a new job, when this type of requirement exists and expect to receive preferential treatment that is not provided to other employees in similar positions, if that is the case.
It is not likely that this is going to make the minority of people that hate autism speaks because of their mission and goals, hate the organization any less. But, once the case leaves the court, and legal decisions are provided, Autism Speaks will be able to provide their legal rationale. If it is based on their right to expect employees to work a regular schedule, when regular attendance in a set schedule is reasonably required, it's not likely going to upset any of the millions of people that already support the organization's mission and goals.
Posted by: Kate | July 23, 2012 at 01:57 AM
Diane
I am sure they don't speak for you: perhaps they speak on behalf of an institutionally created plague.
Posted by: Hermes T | July 22, 2012 at 06:26 PM
Its bad enough that working parents of special needs kids are discriminated and denied job promotions daily, but from an employer focused on autism - appalling! Reinforces my belief that Autism Speaks doesn't speak for me (or my child)!
Posted by: Diane | July 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM
The salaries, benefits, bonus, etc. of these 16 executives at Autism Speaks total $3,361,751 (in 2010 alone). Just think of all the well-meaning people that have donated and gave of their time so these 16 people could take advantage of a non-profit organization to advance themselves financially. What treatments or cures for autism has Autism Speaks provided up to the present? What justifies this kind of pork barrel gouging by these 16 people? Well-meaning people are being suckered punched in the gut by Autism Speaks!!!!!!
Posted by: Raymond Gallup | July 22, 2012 at 12:06 PM
Don't forget that Autism Speaks pays their executive staff exorbitant wages, benefits, etc. besides this lawsuit that is pending. Autism Speaks spends over 20% on administrative costs.... See what 20% gets people that donate to Autism Speaks per this (in 2010)..................
Recent 990 for Autism Speaks for year 2010 on Schedule J, Part II, page 2 of the 2010 990 Form (page 48 of 96), I found the following for Geri Dawson:
Base Compensation: $387,712.00
Bonus and Incentive Compensation: $35,000.00
Other Reportable Compensation: $1,290.00
Retirement and Other Deferred Compensation: $9,800.00
Nontaxable Benefits: $22,618.00
Total $456,420.00
Other Totals (including Retirement, other reportable compensation, and nontaxable benefits):
Mark Roithmayr $391,892.00
Peter Bell $261,489.00
Thomas Hetzel $183,810.00
Patrick Kemp $229,311.00
Richard Brown $198,093.00
Sophia Colamarino $182,941.00
Andy Shih $196,308.00
Clara Lajonchere $208,482.00
Anita Sostex $213,980.00
Marc Sirkin $183,639.00
Stuart Spielman $156,583.00
William Shea $143,692.00
Scott Liebowitz $156,218.00
Jamitha Fields $146,961.00
Lorri Unumb $151,932.00
So people that donate to Autism Speaks are suckers because this is where the money is going to. In past 990s I saw private jet expenses listed as well. Nice!!!!!!!!!
The Link.........
http://207.153.189.83/EINS/202329938/202329938_2010_079a5a43.PDF
From...........
http://www.eri-nonprofit-salaries.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=NPO.Summary&EIN=202329938&Cobrandid=0
Posted by: Raymond Gallup | July 22, 2012 at 08:32 AM
Autism Speaks
Suck multi - millions away from who???
DO they offer a service that is tangible - goods - no
What do they do -- research?
The last I heard they had collected medical records of kids with autism but did not have the multi- millions to hire people to go through them ..
I am willing to do 50 for free -- any other volunteers?
You would think all the people that turn out of the the walks to rasie money would be willing to sit down instead and go through a few medical records.
Posted by: Benedetta | July 20, 2012 at 10:09 AM
Thank you Barry.
Posted by: Andrea | July 20, 2012 at 09:36 AM
As a matter of policy, Autism Speaks does not comment on matters that are pending before a court. Autism Speaks is an equal opportunity employer with a wide range of diversity among its employees, including individuals with autism as well as parents of children affected by autism spectrum disorders.
**************
Yeah, whatever.
Vaccine manufacturers are 100% responsible for this epidemic of vaccine injury (...or autism, as they would much prefer we called it). I used to believe that these money hungry sociopaths were the lowest of the low, until Autism Speaks came along.
You guys know full well that vaccines cause autism, yet instead of rushing in to STOP this from happening to more children.... you knowingly feign advocacy, to lead parents AWAY from the belief that vaccines are doing this to their children. That is sick.
Autism speaks does not, has never, and WILL never speak for my vaccine injured child. And you can rest assured, that there's a special place in hell for each and every one of you.
Posted by: Barry | July 20, 2012 at 07:45 AM
I am glad this topic came up. I was at a major consulting firm, and had mentioned that my son had autism to my manager in a moment of stupidity. I was making good money at that time, and could afford a fantastic nanny so I never missed a moment of work. Well, one day I was working late and he came by and said "Why are you working late? You should be home with your special needs child". I was totally blown away. I was only a contractor so I did not report it to HR. But this problem is real. At my next job interview, out of the blue, the interviewer asked me if I had a special needs child! I said "NO" because I knew it was illegal to ask if I had a child, period, not to mention the special needs part. BUt then throughout that job, this hung over my head. Did I tell them the truth or did I continue to hide it, lest the earlier experience recur. THe economy had tanked and I really needed that job! So, I was very happy to find out in this article that it is illegal to NOT try to make some accommodation. Thanks for the story. And it IS mind blowing that Autism Speaks wouldn't just quickly settle this and SHUT UP. They have ZERO defense against this.
Posted by: Cannot Say | July 20, 2012 at 03:13 AM
"As a matter of policy, Autism Speaks does not comment on matters that are pending before a court."
Er....Autism Speaks.....You just HAVE!!
Posted by: Jenny Allan | July 20, 2012 at 02:10 AM
Here is the problem with this lawsuit. It sounds so evil and makes a great story line. The plaintiff did not bother to mention during 5 interviews (until after being hired) that there would be a problem with child care. No doubt she was asked about it several times. Also troublesome, is that she immediately found a solution (less than a day) to the problem... so why even bring it up? As an employer it would make one pause to think that perhaps this was going to become a problem.
It is not reasonable in this day and age to think that, if one had to go through 5 interviews, there were a lot of options with respect to hours of work. Plaintiff must have known this.
It was ridiculous for AS to tell Plaintiff her job offer was being rejected because they could not work around her autistic child's needs. The person who said that clearly does not have interview skills. At the same time, none of us who really wanted a job badly would have waited so long to talk about a probable 1/2 day issue. Not to mention the fact, that many private schools have the same wednesday early release issue.
Again, it sounds bad but I am thinking that if the child had been anything other than autistic, no attorney would have sued. This is not reality in any world I know.
This job did not sound like a straight 9-5 kind of deal.
Posted by: asneedsinterviewtraining | July 20, 2012 at 12:07 AM
Autism Speaks seems to be following the same attitude of Susan Koman organization toward women's health.
Posted by: ldb | July 19, 2012 at 11:00 PM
Speaks volumes, huh?
Posted by: 4Bobby | July 19, 2012 at 10:51 PM
Mark L. Olson
Look at what Carolyn wrote.
She is spot on.
What do you mean if I don't like it I can start my own mult - million dollar bussiness -
I think there is a punch line in there somewhere
Please anyone? - anyone?
Posted by: Benedetta | July 19, 2012 at 10:36 PM
Had they actually hired her, it may have been the first time some Autism Speaks money actually went to a family in need.
Posted by: Steve | July 19, 2012 at 08:57 PM
Ouch! hope they swing ..
Angus
Posted by: Angus Files | July 19, 2012 at 08:46 PM
it should be interesting to see how this plays out in court.
Posted by: megan | July 19, 2012 at 07:29 PM
AS should know better than to rescind an employment offer in that manner. Whoever makes the hiring decisions there should have known to put in the employment contract a 30, 60 or even 90 day probationary clause, giving AS an out if the Plaintiff demonstrated she could not arrange for child care more than X number of times. It should have been stated very clearly - written by their attorney. And, Ms. Greggs should have not waited until May to let AS know about her own issues with child care, when she applied in March. That was irresponsible. It is not AS's duty to provide accommodations for her. We all have needs we must work around to do our jobs. Why does everyone want to make their problems someone else's these days? Get creative and get moving! Although I am not a fan of AS, I do believe they have the right to hire/fire anyone at anytime for anything. At least, that's how it is in TX. AS should have consulted with a company like www.cmiassessments.com to help them with their hiring process to ensure they have all the documentation in place. The hiring assessments would have uncovered this information/challenge on the first interview. They left themselves wide-opened for this one.
Posted by: Terri Martino | July 19, 2012 at 06:47 PM
As a matter of policy, Autism Speaks does not comment on matters that are pending before a court. Autism Speaks is an equal opportunity employer with a wide range of diversity among its employees, including individuals with autism as well as parents of children affected by autism spectrum disorders.
Posted by: Autism Speaks | July 19, 2012 at 06:42 PM
Wow, guess that whole "innocent until proven guilt" notion is just too inconvenient for most of you. How many sides of this matter have been presented here...just one. I don't know the facts here, and neither do any of you. Reprinting the complaint is not a recitation or determination of fact. I'm also not taking sides here. Anyone can sue anyone over anything. If AS is proven wrong, then corrective action needs to take place. And if Ms. Greggs is wrong, then she needs to take corrective action.
BTW, no organization is perfect and neither are any of you. But if you think AS is so bad and you're certain you can do better and do more, then go start your own multi-million dollar non-profit and do it.
Posted by: Mark L. Olson | July 19, 2012 at 06:21 PM
As a matter of policy, Autism Speaks does not comment on matters that are pending before a court. Autism Speaks is an equal opportunity employer with a wide range of diversity among its employees, including individuals with autism as well as parents of children affected by autism spectrum disorders.
Posted by: Autism Speaks | July 19, 2012 at 06:10 PM
Autism Speaks is a nasty bunch of folks! Sadly, they will spend lots of money defending themselves-you parents need to host more walks and other fund-raisers so they will have the funds to do so!
Posted by: helpingspecialkids | July 19, 2012 at 06:06 PM
Each and every time Autism Speaks arrives in a state on a white horse (via private jet) and gets autism insurance reform passed, they are discriminating against those families who want choice in their child's medical care.
The only states where this did not occur, and they fight to rescind that legislation, is where there have been powerful groups like ACHAMP supporting the process. ABA is their money maker now and medication will be next since they've announced their research investments to do so in other countries so they will not have to turn over reports required if done in the US.
Look up their Autism Treatment Network and what they've set as a foundation for this to occur. They know their walks were decreasing in revenue because you can only go so far on not supporting families, 3% of fundraising goes to family support, and also legislation which is not getting the results folks had thought.
So they will settle this and spin it and folks will continue to support them, even though each and every day all they care about is raising money. I saw this when someone was discussing educational services. But it is perfect when you look a the business of autism that Autism Speaks has created. "Demand based strategies are good for products. Children are not products." Nor are those in families affected.
Thank you for bringing this to light.
Carolyn
Posted by: Carolyn | July 19, 2012 at 02:50 PM
They don't want to cover speech with their insurance bills at a rate that prevents regression, they impose age caps with full support of the insurance lobby.
My question is how many non verbal people with autism are employed by autism speaks?
People who whine need to be more proactive. I am just as offended by those who have time to watch Jenny and Oprah, but, cannot work on legislation that will positively affect thousands
of kids and families in your state. I will defend their right to hire whoever they want.
Posted by: Less Talk More Action | July 19, 2012 at 02:02 PM
Beyond repulsive. I really hate this B.S. organization. Their true colors are really showing now!
Posted by: Unbelievable...yet believable. | July 19, 2012 at 01:20 PM
hurry up and wait just a second! don't we have to stop the wheels of justice just a moment to ponder the exponentially expanded justifications for corporate personhood?
justice, just as in the case of Pfizer, may find that AS may just be 'too big to fail'...
Posted by: Mike Sullivan | July 19, 2012 at 11:27 AM
"Plaintiff has suffered and continue to suffer severe mental anguish and emotional distress, including but not limited to depression, humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-confidence, emotional pain and suffering, as well as physical injury, for which she is entitled to an award of monetary damages and other relief."
While I do think it's priceless that they are being sued for discriminating against who they were formed to serve - and prevent discrimination of --- I think it's ridiculous that everyone with any lawsuit is asking for compensation for the above "mental anguish".
Where is "Autism" whom I can sue? I suffer each of those things listed daily in my "Life with Autism" -- where's my "monetary reward and other relief?"
sheesh.
Posted by: Camo Mom TX | July 19, 2012 at 11:15 AM
She had FIVE INTERVIEWS that went well and then was offered a position. I would assume she has some proper background and qualifications.
...but once the "A word" was mentioned everything fell apart. ?????
Autistic children do not fit in well with the "Park Avenue Autism Speaks" organization. They may want to "settle out of court to keep things quiet" and not harm their endless fundraising activities. I would suggest using the long/ full court process.
What a great opportunity to place some people under oath and ask questions for days and days...
Posted by: cmo | July 19, 2012 at 11:10 AM
You're shitting me, right? Unbelieveable!
Posted by: Charlie Hoover | July 19, 2012 at 11:05 AM
OK I do not know what is worse, what this women went through or that they actually have a position titled Director of Talent Acquisitions!
Posted by: Trotts19 | July 19, 2012 at 10:55 AM
Their agenda??
Oh, what could it be?
My gut feeling from the very first time I got on thier website (still naive, and I should not have been since it was was the beginning of my third decade in this mess)
Was insurance.
Their main message was - DO NOT TELL ANYONE YOUR CHILD HAS AUTISM. because if health insurance finds out they won't pay for treatments.
Treatments!!!! THERE ARE TREATMENTS????? That the medical people - actually medical doctors that insurance companies recognize and will not pay for medical treatment ???
Stomach problems, heart, epilepsy - those are what I want treatment for.
But I am pretty sure they meant
speech teacher??? You know "Autism Speaks"
and ABA stuff.
No insurance company would pay for speech or ABA even if it was not autism and something else. because that is getting into the education area.
Posted by: Benedetta | July 19, 2012 at 09:30 AM
"On May 7, 2012, a conference call took place with Ms. Greggs, which included, Ms. Gibbons, Ms. DeSaules, Ms. Wilbanks, and Ms. LePage, stating that they were rescinding the employment offer because they did not want to make any accommodations for the care of her Autistic child."
Autism Speaks. It's time to listen.
Posted by: pass the popcorn | July 19, 2012 at 09:14 AM
Why do they have to involve ordinary people in their wealth driven exercise? It is disgusting.
Posted by: Blood Sucker | July 19, 2012 at 09:14 AM
Outrageous! The good news is that this could be the absolute undoing of Autism Speaks. It couldn't happen to a more obfuscatory organization that promotes helping the autism community and researching the causes of autism, yet keeps the needed research involving vaccines as a cause of autism from being done. May Ms. Greggs be wildly successful in her litigation, and may her lawsuit make many others think about the true hypocritical nature of those who run Autism Speaks. Shame on Autism Speaks!
Posted by: Not an MD | July 19, 2012 at 09:09 AM
Horrible and shameful!!!
Autism Speaks stinks on top of what they do with spending money on high salaries for Dawson on down as well as private jets and travel for their executives. Their administrative costs which include executive salaries, benefits and retirement (plus a bonus for Dawson) exceed 20% of what they spend. It is sad that they are so good at fund raising and then they piss the money down the toilet on meaningless research and administrative costs.
I haven't given Autism Speaks a dime nor ever will. I hope the Plaintiff Simone Greggs wins her case against Autism Speaks. Autism Speaks deserves to lose the case, they are a dirt bag autism organization (and I'm being kind in using the words dirt bag when I could have used worse to adequately describe them).
Posted by: Raymond Gallup | July 19, 2012 at 09:00 AM
Which begs the question, "WHO ON EARTH would actually WANT to work for this organization in the first place?" Anyone who has a family connection to autism who hasn't done their own research about Autism Speaks and their real agenda needs to WAKE UP AND SMELL THE KOOLAID.
Posted by: Blue Koolaid | July 19, 2012 at 08:43 AM
Could it be that they are not really on our side? What a revelation!
'Ours not to reason why, ours but to walk and die!'
Posted by: John Stone | July 19, 2012 at 08:05 AM
So the millions well intended people raise for AS will be spent defending their discrimination in court. Phenomenal.
Posted by: Lori Orrico | July 19, 2012 at 07:57 AM
Complaint alleges:
"2.Over the course of two months, Plaintiff was given five different interviews with various officials of the Defendant and was finally told that they wanted to hire her for employment and was given an acceptance letter. Plaintiff then told Defendants that her son is Autistic and attends a special school, and on Wednesdays the school lets out early so she would like to be able to come into the office early that day so that she could leave early and get home in time for her son. Defendants told her that it would not be possible to do so. Plaintiff then made other arrangements and was able to retain a babysitter for her son for that day. Defendants then rescinded the employment offer. When Plaintiff asked why, Defendants wouldn’t tell her and then blurred out a derogatory remark. When Plaintiff tried to contact the CEO, Defendants threatened a harassment suit on the Plaintiff."
Obviously, it will be up to the courts to decide the merits of this case .. but .. just the allegation alone .. that Autism Speaks may have denied a mom employment because she has an AUTISTIC child that Autism Speaks did not want to make any accommodations so mom could provide loving care for .. would be UNFORGIVABLY REPREHENSIBLE .. ON MANY LEVELS.
INDEED .. AUTISM SPEAKS SHOULD CLOSE THEIR DOORS IMMEDIATELY IF THE COURTS FINDS THIS ALLEGATION SUSTAINABLE UNDER THE LAW.
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | July 19, 2012 at 07:46 AM
Autism Speaks would not make accommodations for an employee that had to do with the care of their autistic child?
Priceless.
Posted by: Andrea | July 19, 2012 at 07:17 AM
I hope this lady wins her action against 'Autism Speaks', which appears based on them unreasonably discriminating against her, just because she has an autistic son.
This so called 'autism charity' seems to have acted shamefully, and totally against the 'ethos' of their charitable status. I hope the publicity, generated by this case, might just 'show them up' for what Autism Speaks REALLY stands for, but I suspect AS will quietly settle this out of court with a 'gagging' order.
Watch this space.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | July 19, 2012 at 06:44 AM