Law Offices of Goldman & Ehrlich

Law Offices of Goldman & Ehrlich Goldman & Ehrlich, a Chicago Law Firm, represents Employees and Small Business in employment issues

Goldman & Ehrlich is a Chicago employment law firm which concentrates on employment litigation and employment discrimination. We represent private employees, Federal, State, County and Municipal employees and small businesses in Chicago, the surrounding counties and southwestern Michigan in actions alleging violations of federal and state laws regarding
For more than 25 years, we have effectively

represented and counseled employees and small businesses in actions for wrongful discharge and claims alleging violations of Title VII, ADA, ADEA, FMLA, Sarbanes Oxley, USERRA and the Illinois Human Rights Act, as well as various common law actions.

12/15/2025

SIX GEESE A-LAYING… AND THE SIX RULES EVERY EMPLOYER SHOULD KNOW
ABOUT PREGNANCY RIGHTS

By Hannah B. Owings Saturley-- Verrill -
“On the sixth day of HR’s favorite season, my lawyers said to me… six geese a-laying (and a flock of pregnancy-related protections to follow).”

The song may give us six geese a-laying, but in the workplace, nothing lays more legal traps than mishandling pregnancy-related rights. Between the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and various state-level protections, employers must be prepared to support pregnant and postpartum employees with clear, consistent, and legally compliant practices.

Why Pregnancy-Related Protections Matter

Pregnancy discrimination remains one of the most common sources of EEOC charges. Issues often arise when employers:

Deny or delay reasonable accommodations
Make assumptions about an employee’s ability to work
Apply policies inconsistently
Penalize pregnancy-related absences
Mishandle postpartum, pumping, or recovery needs
Proactive compliance supports employee health, reduces risk, and fosters an inclusive workplace culture.

Six Rules for Pregnancy Accommodation & Non-Discrimination

Know the PWFA (and apply it generously)
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, effective 2023, requires employers with 15+ employees to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions—unless doing so creates an undue hardship.

Examples include light duty, schedule changes, more frequent breaks, remote work, or limits on lifting.

Avoid assumptions about the ability to work
Never remove, reassign, or reduce an employee’s hours “for their own good.” Employment decisions must be based on the employee’s stated needs and medical guidance—not stereotypes.

Engage in the interactive process promptly
Just like disability accommodations, pregnancy-related requests require a timely, individualized conversation about potential modifications. Delays, blanket denials, or inflexible policies can lead to discrimination claims.

Understand leave entitlements (federal + state)
Pregnancy can trigger overlapping leave rights, including:

FMLA (if eligible)
PWFA (reasonable time off)
ADA (pregnancy-related complications)
State leave laws, which may offer paid or additional leave
Employers should clarify which laws apply and ensure employees aren’t improperly forced onto leave.

Provide break time and private space for pumping
Under the PUMP Act, employers must provide:

Reasonable break time
A private, non-bathroom space
For one year following childbirth
State laws may go further—so check local requirements.

Apply policies consistently
Attendance rules, performance policies, and disciplinary practices must be applied to pregnant employees the same way they are to others with temporary conditions. Consistency is key to avoiding claims of disparate treatment.

The Takeaway

Pregnancy-related rights shouldn’t be a guessing game. Understanding the evolving patchwork of federal and state protections helps create a safer, more supportive environment while minimizing legal risk.

08/20/2025

UPCOMING AMENDMENTS TO ILLINOIS NURSING MOTHERS IN THE WORKPLACE ACT

By Sarah J. Gasperini- Jackson Lewis PC -
On August 1, 2025, Illinois enacted amendments to its Nursing Mothers in the Workplace Act (“Act”), which will take effect on January 1, 2026.

Under the Act, Illinois employers must provide reasonable break time to employees who need to express breast milk for their nursing infant for one year after the child’s birth. That break time may run concurrently with any break time already provided to the employee.

Effective January 1, 2026, breaks required by the Act must be paid at the employee’s regular rate of compensation, unless doing so would create an “undue hardship” as defined in the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA). The IHRA defines “undue hardship” as “prohibitively expensive or disruptive” when considered in light of specified factors including, among other things, the financial resources of the employer, the size of the employer and the impact on operations. The amendment also prohibits employers from requiring employees to use paid leave for breaks required by the Act or from otherwise reducing a nursing employee’s compensation during the break time.

Employers should review and revise their lactation accommodation policies to ensure compliance with these upcoming requirements as well as the federal PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP Act) and Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. For questions or assistance, please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney.

07/22/2025

THE WNBA COMPENSATION DEBATE: BOTH SIDES HAVE A POINT — AND THAT’S EXACTLY THE ISSUE

By Anderson P.C.
As someone who represents athletes and advises on collective bargaining, NIL, and broader athlete rights, I find the conversation around WNBA pay both fascinating and layered. It’s not a simple case of greed or injustice. It’s not about heroes and villains. It’s about economic timing, market reality, and the hard truths of how professional leagues mature — and how long that process can take.

There’s a knee-jerk reaction many people have when they hear that WNBA players want higher pay. They scoff. They quote profit margins. They cite low attendance numbers from five years ago. They say the league “loses money.” And for many years, that was true. The WNBA wasn’t a profitable enterprise — not by traditional P&L standards. But that’s not the full story. In fact, it’s not even the right metric anymore.

A League in Transition

The WNBA is now in the midst of a genuine revenue inflection point. We’ve seen 200–300% growth in team revenue. Ticket sales are up dramatically. Merchandise is flying. And the new media rights deal — still in the works but widely expected to be worth hundreds of millions — is injecting the kind of capital and exposure that suggests not just viability, but long-term valuation growth.

From a legal and structural standpoint, that matters. The modern CBA is no longer just about splitting existing revenue; it’s about positioning for participation in future upside. Athletes are not just labor. They’re brand accelerators. And if players are fueling the value surge, they deserve to share in the economics — whether that’s through base salary increases, licensing revenue, or post-career benefit enhancements.

The Caitlin Clark Moment

Much of this acceleration is happening alongside what I’d call the “Caitlin Clark Moment.” She’s a once-in-a-generation player with a once-in-a-generation impact. But what’s different this time is that the league was actually ready for her. Infrastructure, marketing, and media were aligned in a way that allowed her stardom to lift the entire ecosystem.

Still, her presence has stirred discomfort for some veteran players. That’s natural. It’s the tension between legacy and opportunity. Between those who built the foundation and the one who arrived with the camera lights already on. And yet, we must be honest: she is the catalyst. And any serious discussion about player rights and value sharing must acknowledge that reality.

Pay Progress — But Not Satisfaction

I do believe players will get paid more. The system is moving in that direction. But I also believe that many won’t be satisfied — not right away. There will be frustration that the increases don’t match the attention, the merch sales, the media hype. And that frustration is fair. But we also need to be real about how these leagues grow.

Let’s not forget: the NBA didn’t turn a profit for nearly 50 years. The WNBA is only 28. If you believe in the long-term vision of women's basketball, then you have to believe in the time it takes to get there — and that belief has to apply on both sides of the table. Owners need to invest with patience, yes. But players and advocates also need to calibrate expectations with realism.

This isn’t a sprint. It’s a negotiated climb.

So What’s Fair?

From a legal perspective, fairness isn’t just a feeling — it’s about process and structure. It’s about bargaining in good faith, indexing compensation to revenue growth, and revisiting old assumptions as new data emerges. The next CBA negotiations will be critical. Not just for what they say, but for what they signal — about belief, about commitment, and about whether this league is truly ready to mature into what we all hope it can be.

Until then, both arguments have merit. Yes, the league has historically lost money. Yes, players deserve more. That tension isn’t hypocrisy — it’s the nature of progress. It’s also exactly where thoughtful legal strategy and athlete advocacy should live: in the in-between.

07/17/2025

NAVIGATING DEI INITIATIVES AMIDST EVOLVING LEGAL AND POLITICAL LANDSCAPES

By Shelley M. Jackson and Marsha Jean-Baptiste- Krieg DeVault -
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives are a foundational element of the workplace for many employers. As such initiatives face heightened scrutiny, organizations must respond to shifting legal, political, and enforcement trends with precision and care. Federal agencies have ramped up civil rights enforcement, while recent Executive Orders (EOs) and regulatory developments have introduced new compliance challenges to DEI efforts.

Since January 2025, there have been a flurry of executive branch activities aimed at curbing illegal DEI-related activities while also communicating a broader criticism of DEI initiatives in general. Some of these activities have altered the compliance landscape with respect to federal government agencies, departments, contractors, and grantees; others are not binding but indicate a sharply evolving political and enforcement environment.

Overview of Executive Branch Activities

1. Recent Executive Orders on DEI

In January 2025, President Trump issued a series of Executive Orders aimed at dismantling race or gender conscious DEI efforts, especially among federal contractors and grant recipients. Key EOs include:

A. EO 14151—Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs: Requires the federal government and its agencies to eliminate DEI programs deemed discriminatory and establishes reporting on federal agencies, departments, contractors, and grantees that have participated in DEI-related activities.

B. EO 14173—Ending Illegal Based Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity: Eliminates affirmative action requirements for federal contractors; prohibits private organizations from conducting DEI employment programs for jobs created by federal contracts; and rescinds EO 11246 issued in 1965, which authorized the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) to initiate investigations and bring enforcement actions in relation to alleged discrimination on the basis of “race, creed, color, or national origin” by federal government contractors.

Broadly speaking, these EOs prohibit the use of federal funds for DEI programs deemed by the executive branch to create unlawful preferences and eliminate affirmative action mandates for federal contractors. EOs do not, however, carry the force of law and do not supersede or invalidate current statutes or regulations, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), or binding legal precedent. Additionally, the directives set forth in such EOs generally apply to federal agencies and their employees, although they can strongly influence policy and enforcement activities that impact private entities, particularly those that receive federal funds.

2. The Evolving Enforcement Stance on DEI and Title VII Compliance

In March 2025, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) jointly issued technical assistance documents detailing their updated enforcement stance with respect to DEI initiatives and compliance with Title VII. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race, s*x, and other protected traits.

Notable takeaways from the joint press release:

A. Title VII Applies Broadly: It covers all employees, applicants, trainees, and interns. Title VII does not exclude from protection those individuals who are members of majority groups.

B. Motivation Matters: Even if DEI efforts are well-intended, they may violate Title VII if they are partly motivated by race, s*x, or other protected characteristics in hiring, promotions, or training.

C. Hostile Work Environment: DEI trainings perceived as discriminatory in “content, application, or context” may create a hostile work environment.

D. Retaliation Prohibited: Employers may not retaliate against employees who engage in protected activity under Title VII to oppose any alleged illegal DEI initiatives, including participating in the EEOC charge process or opposing alleged unlawful discrimination practices.

The EEOC continues to encourage employers to collect demographic data for compliance purposes (e.g., EEO-1 reports) but cautions against using that data to implement quotas or preferential treatment.

3. The DOJ’s Civil Rights Fraud Initiative

In May 2025, the DOJ published a memo announcing its launch of a new Civil Rights Fraud Initiative to address what the DOJ views as unlawful discrimination by federal contractors or other recipients of federal funds. The memo emphasizes leveraging the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., to pursue recipients of federal funds who knowingly violate civil rights laws through implementing DEI programs that discriminate based on race, s*x, or national origin.

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Fellows of Harv. Coll., 600 U.S. 181 (2023), the DOJ frames race-conscious DEI policies as unlawful if they assign benefits or burdens based on certain protected characteristics. The memo calls for coordinated enforcement by the DOJ’s Civil Rights and Civil Fraud Sections, state attorneys general, and federal agencies such as the Department of Education, Labor, and Health & Human Services.

4. State or Local Challenges to DEI

In addition to federal government actions, several states or localities, including Indiana, have sought to curtail certain DEI-related activities. For example, in January 2025 Indiana Governor Mike Braun implemented state-level EOs designed to eliminate DEI-related activities in a number of areas of state government, resulting in elimination of a reported 350 DEI-related initiatives in Indiana state government. Private organizations, although not falling directly within the purview of such EOs, may nonetheless see bottom-line impacts from such efforts and should remain vigilant for increased scrutiny.

Best Practices to Mitigate Risk

1. Evaluate Risk: Conduct an audit of DEI-related activities to understand current scope and ensure alignment with Title VII and other applicable laws. Note that DEI initiatives, when properly executed, remain fully lawful.

2. Train Your Leaders: Provide practical guidance on compliance, risks, and anti-retaliation protections.

3. Coordinate Across Departments: Ensure a broad focus on compliance and risk management, not just in Legal or Human Resources.

4. Develop a Response Plan: Be prepared to navigate internal and external complaints or regulatory enforcement. Evaluate and update response protocols and points of contact.

Takeaways

DEI initiatives remain legally viable and strategically important and now demand sharper attention to compliance. While federal scrutiny and political rhetoric have increased, organizations that frame DEI around fairness, opportunity, and business needs can continue to build diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplace cultures while minimizing legal risks.

07/02/2025

SEXUAL HARASSMENT PREVENTION TRAINING NEVER GOES OUT OF STYLE

By Colby Berman- Akerman LLP -
Even in a shifting legal landscape, some things stay constant – such as an employer’s obligation to provide s*xual harassment prevention training to its employees. While federal law does not explicitly require all employers to provide s*xual harassment training to their employees, many state and local laws either require or strongly recommend that such trainings be given. Moreover, under federal law, an employer’s administration of a harassment training program is the first line of defense in establishing that an employer took reasonable steps to prevent harassment in its workplace. So, while employers may be feeling seismic shifts in other areas, there is no time like the present to review harassment training requirements in select key jurisdictions to stay compliant and harassment-free.

Which Employers Are Required to Provide Sexual Harassment Training?

Employers may need to look at either a state or local law to determine what (if anything) is required in terms of s*xual harassment trainings. Many jurisdictions require s*xual harassment training; others recommend it. The following is a non-exhaustive list of key places in which s*xual harassment trainings are required:

California: Employers with 5+ employees (including temporary or seasonal employees)

Connecticut: Employers with 3+ employees at any location (including outside Connecticut); employers with less than 3 employees must provide training to supervisors only

Delaware: Employers with 50+ employees

Illinois: Employers with 1+ employee(s) in Illinois during 20+ calendar weeks within a calendar year

Chicago: Employers with employees working in Chicago

Maine: Employers with 15+ employees

New York: Employers with employees who work any portion of their time in New York

NYC: Employers with 15+ employees or independent contractors in the previous calendar year

In addition, s*xual harassment trainings are recommended or encouraged, but not required, in: Colorado, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island (for 50+ employees), and Vermont, among other places.

What Are the Frequency/Timing Requirements for the Trainings?

In California, employees must be trained within six months of hire or starting in a supervisory position (with nuances for seasonal and temporary employees, and new businesses), and every two years thereafter. In Connecticut, supplemental training is required every 10 years. Delaware requires training within one year of beginning new or supervisory employment, and every two years thereafter. Illinois requires annual training, including supplemental trainings for restaurants and bars. In Maine, all new employees must be trained within one year of beginning new or supervisor/managerial employment. In Massachusetts, training is encouraged within one year of an employee or supervisor/manager beginning employment. In New York, employees must be trained annually (based on the calendar year, the employee’s start date, or any other date of the employer’s choosing). Chicago and New York City employees must also receive annual harassment training.

Employers in Rhode Island and Vermont who choose to conduct a harassment training must provide the training within one year of new or supervisory/managerial employment. In Vermont, training should be done annually.

What Is the Required Format for the Training?

Regardless of the geographic location, the jurisdictions that require or encourage trainings generally require that the training include an explanation of s*xual harassment, examples of conduct that constitutes s*xual harassment, the relevant state and federal laws concerning s*xual harassment, and internal and/or external complaint processes available to the worker. Most trainings also require an explanation of the supervisor’s role in preventing and addressing s*xual harassment, and some also include required bystander intervention training. Employers should consult their jurisdiction’s laws for more details as to the specific training requirements.

California, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Chicago, and New York City include additional formatting nuances. California requires training to be interactive and two hours long for supervisors, one hour for nonsupervisory employees. Connecticut requires a two-hour long interactive training, and Delaware, New York, and New York City require interactive trainings. Chicago employees must receive one hour of s*xual harassment prevention training, and one hour of bystander training, whereas Chicago supervisors and managers must receive two hours of s*xual harassment prevention training and one hour of bystander training.

Some jurisdictions, including California, Connecticut, Illinois, Chicago, New York, and New York City, also have pre-made and compliant model trainings available online through their state/city human rights agencies.

What Is Required of Trainers?

Most state and local laws on s*xual harassment trainings do not include specific requirements with respect to the people conducting the trainings. Of the places discussed above, California requires a classroom setting with an in-person trainer or other interactive training. New York state and New York City do not require, but recommend, the use of a live trainer.

General Best Practices

Even if your company is not subject to the laws of one of the jurisdictions where training is required, harassment training is always a good idea. Training employees to understand and recognize unlawful conduct not only helps them feel supported and equipped to address any wrongdoing, but it may also bolster the employer’s defense in an employment discrimination or harassment lawsuit. Being able to show that a company is committed to complying with the law and providing a harassment-free workplace is a valuable tool that employers can leverage if litigation ensues.

Similarly, no matter what your jurisdiction’s law says about recordkeeping, it is a great idea to maintain records of attendance at employee and supervisor/manager harassment trainings. Some places actually impose civil penalties against an employer who fails to conduct such trainings (examples include Connecticut, Illinois, and Maine). Regardless, it is crucial for an employer to be able to show proof that such trainings were given, in defense of a s*xual harassment claim, which makes keeping these records all the more important.

06/13/2025

THE FEDS MAY BE BACKING DOWN ON LGBTQ PROTECTIONS, BUT SHOULD EMPLOYERS?

(Good employees come in many shapes, sizes, colors, and identities, so it is still wise to consider diverse options for the best workforce. Plus, many state laws still protect LGBTQ+ community)

By Benjamin Rowley- Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete LLP -

Don't overreact. (Or underreact.)

This June, as corporations continue to roll back public support and funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, it is important for employers to be familiar with the current state of employment protections for s*xual orientation and gender identity at both the federal and state levels.

In many ways, inclusivity handled appropriately allows employers to attract and retain talent. And regardless of the current position of the federal government, employers must ensure that they are complying with applicable federal and state laws.

Federal protections

The Supreme Court’s landmark Bostock v. Clayton County decision held (arguably on a limited basis) that discrimination based on gender identity/expression and s*xual orientation is a form of unlawful s*x discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Bostock remains the governing law at the federal level, regardless of recent executive orders from the Trump Administration that target DEI programs and indications that the current leadership at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may place less of a priority on pursuing cases alleging discrimination based on s*xual orientation or gender identity. Although the federal government may not enforce these protections as aggressively as it did under the Biden Administration, Bostock is still valid law, and private plaintiffs’ attorneys may be expected to fill any void created by less-aggressive federal agencies. Thus, employers must continue to comply with all Title VII anti-discrimination requirements.

State law protections

Many states offer greater employment protections based on s*xual orientation and gender identity than federal law. Twenty-three states currently prohibit discrimination based on s*xual orientation and gender identity in public and private employment. Employers with employees in multiple states should ensure that they comply with all applicable laws – either on a state-by-state basis, or by complying with the laws of the most demanding state in which they have employees. Notably, three of the country’s most populous states with the largest economies – California, Illinois, and New York – offer the broadest protections.

Not surprisingly, California’s protections for s*xual orientation and gender identity significantly exceed federal standards. The state Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on s*xual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and transgender status. More significantly, the California Family Rights Act allows eligible employees to take job-protected leave to care for a same-s*x spouse or a domestic partner. (The federal Family and Medical Leave Act allows leave for same-s*x spouses but not for domestic partners.) Both California statutes apply to private employers with five or more employees, and to all public agencies.

Illinois also offers strong protections for LGBTQ employees. The Illinois Human Rights Act protects individuals from discrimination in employment, housing, financial credit, and public accommodations, as well as s*xual harassment in employment and higher education. The IHRA was amended in 2006 to specifically include protections for actual or perceived s*xual orientation, and again in 2019 to include protections for gender identity, one of the first state laws in the country to do so.

In New York, state law protects employees from discrimination based on s*xual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression in hiring, pay, promotions, and benefits. New York City goes further, requiring in addition that bathroom access be provided based on gender identity and that employee preferences regarding pronoun use be respected by employers. New York State differs from most states in that it does not require that allegedly harassing behavior be “severe or pervasive.” Thus, it is critical for employers operating in New York to identify potentially discriminatory behavior from the outset, even if it has not yet reached the level that the employer would consider “severe” or “pervasive.”

California, Illinois, and New York are only examples. As noted above, 20 additional states have fair employment practices laws that protect employees based on s*xual orientation and gender identity, and more states are likely to enact such laws in the future.

Conclusion

It is crucial for employers with employees across multiple states to ensure that their policies, handbooks, and workplaces are compliant with federal law and all applicable state and local laws, including those that provide protections from discrimination based on s*xual orientation and gender identity. Employers would be well advised to continue to advance workplace policies that protect all employees – including LGBTQ employees – despite the position of the current administration.

05/01/2025

WHY THE AUTISTIC EXPERIENCE AT WORK MATTERS

April marks Autism Awareness Month, an observance that elicits varied reactions within the autism community itself. Some embrace the opportunity for visibility, while others question whether "awareness" alone is sufficient. However, given the persistence of outdated attitudes toward autistic individuals and their capabilities in the workplace, it's worth revisiting why understanding and appreciating the autistic experience of work matters now more than ever.

Understanding Autism: Beyond the Stereotypes

First, let's clarify the basics. Autism is not an appendage or add-on to a person—it's an intrinsic aspect of how someone's brain is wired and how they experience the world. It's also far more common than many realize, with current prevalence estimates suggesting that approximately 1 in 50 people are autistic.

Historically, autism has simultaneously been associated with brilliance (think of Hans Asperger's "little professors" or the savant character in "Rain Man") while paradoxically being linked with presumed incompetence and dependency. This contradiction highlights a fundamental misunderstanding: while some autistic individuals also have intellectual disabilities that may impact independent living, many do not. This conflation continues to lead to damaging misconceptions about autistic people's capabilities in professional settings.

The Unique Value of Autistic Thinking

Contrary to simplistic tropes such as that autistic people merely "love repetitive tasks," autistic people in fact bring a powerfully distinctive cognitive approach that contributes meaningfully to team diversity of thought. Autistic thinking often embodies bottom-up, logical reasoning that's less susceptible to confirmation bias. This alternative perspective can be invaluable when teams need to break free from groupthink.

Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, in his book "The Pattern Seekers," illuminates another crucial strength: pattern recognition abilities that can lead to breakthrough insights. This aptitude for identifying connections and systems that others might miss has driven innovation throughout human history, from scientific discoveries to technological advancements.

Challenging Stereotypes: Leadership and Entrepreneurship

Despite persistent stereotypes about social ineptitude, many autistic individuals excel as managers—bringing empathy, directness, and practical problem-solving to their teams. In my book "A Hidden Force," I document numerous examples of autistic leaders whose skills such as a straightforward communication style and attention to detail have earned them respect and success in leadership roles.

The entrepreneurial landscape similarly defies stereotypes about limited autistic capabilities. Consider the inspiring story of Marcus Moore, who transformed his passion for baking into a thriving pretzel business that now ships nationwide from his Baltimore-area commercial kitchen. As Moore told reporters, "I just want to inspire other autistic people to follow their dreams and to know that if I can do it, they can do it too."

Similarly, Katie Oswald, founder of Bitty & Beau's Coffee in Ann Arbor, has built a successful business while creating inclusive employment opportunities for others with disabilities. Her entrepreneurial journey demonstrates how autistic individuals can not only succeed in business but also drive positive social change through their ventures.

The Cost of Exclusion

Despite these success stories, negative attitudes toward autistic individuals remain pervasive and costly. Organizations lose out in terms of reduced productivity, diminished innovative capacity, and higher turnover when they fail to create inclusive environments.

Research reveals troubling patterns: 56% of neurodivergent respondents report experiencing communication barriers at work, and – strikingly and shockingly - approximately one in four workers admit they would not be comfortable employing autistic people. These attitudes don't just harm individuals: they represent a significant loss of talent and perspective for businesses.

Moving Beyond Awareness

Autism Awareness Month may indeed feel insufficient to some—especially when heightened awareness in April fades into inaction for the remaining eleven months of the year. However, it does provide a valuable opportunity to highlight the contributions of people with this neuroidentity and to emphasize the importance of creating inclusive teams and spaces.

The goal should be workplaces that optimize the impact and contribution of every different brain type—not despite their differences, but because of them. This requires moving beyond mere awareness toward acceptance, accommodation, and appreciation of the unique value that autistic individuals bring to the table.

When we create environments where autistic talents can flourish, everyone benefits from richer perspectives, more innovative solutions, and more diverse approaches to problem-solving. That's why the autistic experience at work doesn't just matter for autistic professionals—it matters for all of us.

By Ed Thompson is the CEO and founder of neuroinclusion training company Uptimize. He is also the author of the #1 Amazon bestseller “A Hidden Force – Unlocking the Potential of Neurodiversity at Work”.

Address

53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 815
Chicago, IL
60604

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5pm
Tuesday 9am - 5pm
Wednesday 9am - 5pm
Thursday 9am - 5pm
Friday 9am - 5pm

Telephone

+13123326733

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Law Offices of Goldman & Ehrlich posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Law Offices of Goldman & Ehrlich:

Shortcuts

Share

Category