Definition: Given a real-life anecdote of a complex ethical situation, generate a suitable title that describes the main event/root cause of the situation. Imagine that the given text is a social media post, and you have to write the title of the post, so the users can decide to read the main text or not.
Input: My workplace has this open office area where everyone can sit where they want as long as it's free and you're with your team. One day I was late at work and all places were taken except one spot at the corner. Now this place is almost always taken by a co-worker who is autistic. I have no idea what influence it has on him tbh, but he seemed pretty normal (except for being quite quiet) so I never treated him differently.

So I saw the open spot, put my stuff there and installed myself. About 20 minutes later the co-worker arrived and saw me at "his" place. He looked at me and conversation went as next:

Him: "Can you move, that's my usual place"

Me: "I know but it's an open office here and I need to sit with my teammembers"

Him: "There are some spots left in the upper floor"

Me: "Yeah, but my team is here"

He sighed and just left. Then some of the people in around us accused me of being insensitive and that I should have given that place because he's autistic and can't go well with "changes". Others said I had the right to sit there since it's an open office and the co-worker needs to accept it.

Soo, AITA for sitting on \*his\* place and not moving because he's autistic?

&amp;#x200B;

sitting on my autistic co-worker his usual place in this open office environment