Is It Discrimination To Require That An Employee Have A Pulse?
The latest absolutely whacko thing out of the government is an EEOC letter to employers warning them that requiring that a job applicant have a high school diploma might violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dave Boyer writes at The Washington Times:
Employers could run afoul of the ADA if their requirement of a high school diploma "'screens out' an individual who is unable to graduate because of a learning disability that meets the ADA's definition of 'disability,'" the EEOC explained.The commission's advice, which does not carry the force of law, is raising alarms among employment-law professionals, who say it could carry far-reaching implications for businesses.
Maria Greco Danaher, a lawyer with the labor and employment law firm Ogletree Deakins, said the EEOC letter means that employers must determine whether job applicants whose learning disabilities kept them from obtaining diplomas can perform the essential job functions, with or without reasonable accommodation.
If I were hiring a janitor, I'd need that janitor to be able to read the back of bottles of chemicals. What jobs don't? And will the government argue that businesses hiring janitors will be forced to hire "interpreters" for them -- i.e., additional employees to be their reading buddies?
As with so many things: Even if the ADA worked perfectly, this is simply none of the federal government's business. Regulating the employment practices of businesses is not one of the enumerated powers - as such, this is the responsibility of the individual states in which those businesses are present.
Of course, on top of that, the ADA is massively counterproductive. I suspect that many businesses do everything possible to avoid hiring handicapped people, no matter how well qualified, because the ADA makes dealing with disabilities a bureaucratic nightmare.
Example: once you have hired a handicapped person, it is impossible to fire them. Why? Because they only have to say "discrimination" - they don't need any sort of proof; you are presumed guilty, and will be up for an expensive legal battle and/or settlement.
a_random_guy at January 5, 2012 4:36 AM
So TSA's hiring policies are ahead of the ADA curve.
Mark Bennett at January 5, 2012 5:17 AM
The blind pilot needs to bring back his lawsuit. Maybe the airline can have a buddy tell him when to pull up.
I'm not flying the airline that hires him, but this is the EEOC so we need to respect their ruling.
Or not.
MarkD at January 5, 2012 5:32 AM
Here's a new future abuse of the ADA possibly in the offing: Pregnancy a disability?
If I was a business owner why would I hire a women that would possibly get pregnant?
Jim P. at January 5, 2012 6:46 AM
MarkD:
A older airline pilot went for his medical and found out his usual doctor had passed away suddenly the day before.
Shown to a new doctor, the new doctor was horrified at the testing results.
"Your hearing is horrible, your vision is worse! Why, you're almost totally blind!" exclaimed the young doc. "How have you been getting your medical????!"
"Well, Doc North and I have been buddies for a long time and he didn't really check me out. I mean, I'm a longtime pilot, and my vision hasn't gotten worse in years, so he knew it was OK," replied the pilot.
"HOW? You're LEGALLY BLIND! HOW DID YOU POSSIBLY FLY AIRLINERS SAFELY?" shrieked the horrified doctor.
"Well, basically, look, most everything is inside the cockpit now with GPS and RNAV and all the bells and whistles," explained the pilot. "I'm a senior pilot, so I'd let the co-pilot do all the stuff that needed far vision, and get him to do all the taxi crap out to the runway, and most of the takeoffs. The ones I had to do, I had him taxi to the runway, and once you're there, it's simple. Keep the nose pointed at the same compass heading, watch the airspeed, pick up the nose."
"But what about landings?" asked the incredulous doctor.
"Let the co-pilot make most of them - " "But you HAD to make SOME of them!" interjected the doc. " - yeah, some, again, everything in the cockpit, so just get lined up on the right path, glideslope, and fly the needless down." said the pilot.
"What about the actual _landing_?"
"Oh, I used the Savior Method for that."
"The... Savior.. Method?" asked the incredulous doctor.
"Yeah, when the co-pilot sat up and yelled "JESUS CHRIST!!!!!!!!!!!!" I knew to flare," said the pilot.
JimP:
"If I was a business owner why would I"
You can stop right there. That's the point.
If you were a business owner, why would you... Exactly. The point isn't to fix problems _with_ business owners, the point is to fix the "problem" of HAVING business owners.
If you're big enough not to have to worry, then you're fine. But these pesky little folks trying to make a living and live the American Dream, they gotta get in line where they belong. Get a job, a real job, working for a big corp that behaves or the Government.
Unix-Jedi at January 5, 2012 7:54 AM
"If I were hiring a janitor, I'd need that janitor to be able to read the back of bottles of chemicals."
----
Well, then the requirement should be for someone to read. Some people who graduate from high school can't read (yes, really, I tutored athletes at a big football college) and some people who didn't graduate CAN read.
Reality at January 5, 2012 8:52 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/05/is_it_discrimin_1.html#comment-2893513">comment from RealityI'm sure there's some way a reading test and a math test violate the ADA.
Amy Alkon at January 5, 2012 9:19 AM
If not the ADA, it will violate one of a dozen or more laws designed to keep the stupid employed and the employers fearful.
==============================
"Of course, it is very important to be sober when you take an exam. Many worthwhile careers in the street-cleansing, fruit-picking, and subway-guitar-playing industries have been founded on a lack of understanding of this simple fact." -- Terry Pratchett (Moving Pictures)
Conan the Grammarian at January 5, 2012 10:01 AM
Amy: C'mon. First hit on googling "reading test violate ada". :)
www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/factemployment_procedures.html
ADA and Test Accommodation: Employer Must Provide Reasonable Accommodation on Pre-employment Test for Hourly, Unskilled Manufacturing Jobs. The EEOC settled EEOC v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., a case brought on behalf of applicants with learning disabilities who needed reading accommodations during a pre-employment test given for hourly unskilled manufacturing jobs. The resulting settlement agreement provided monetary relief for 12 identified individuals and the opportunity to take the hiring test with the assistance of a reader. The settlement agreement also required that the employer provide a reasonable accommodation on this particular test to each applicant who requested a reader and provided documentation establishing an ADA disability. The accommodation consisted of either a reader for all instructions and all written parts of the test, or an audiotape providing the same information.
Unix-Jedi at January 5, 2012 12:23 PM
Any employee found dead in an upright position will be removed from the payroll.
nonegiven at January 5, 2012 3:10 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/01/05/is_it_discrimin_1.html#comment-2893806">comment from nonegivenLove that.
Amy Alkon at January 5, 2012 3:16 PM
I find the title of this post offensive. Stop discriminating against necro-Americans.
NicoleK at January 5, 2012 3:41 PM
Some of my favorite relatives are necro-American.
NicoleK at January 5, 2012 3:42 PM
This is what Atlas Shrugged meant by ruling men with laws they cannot obey.
Forbid an employer to hire people based on reading ability; fine the employer for employee mistakes with hazards requiring reading to handle properly.
And the people elected Corinne Brown got no problem wid dat.
Radwaste at January 5, 2012 3:43 PM
"I'm sure there's some way a reading test and a math test violate the ADA. "
Actually it violates Griggs vs. Duke Power. That court decision made most pre-employment aptitude tests illegal.
Illiteracy due to some neurological cause, e.g., dyslexia, is considered a disability under the ADA, and employers are required to make accommodations for it. And yes, that means you may have to hire a second employee to read everything for the employee who can't read. As near as I can tell, whether illiteracy due to not paying attention in school is an ADA-qualified disability has not been tested in court. But sooner or later, some shyster is going to figure out a tactic -- claiming that illiteracy is caused by some vague, hard-to-diagnose mental impairment, or some such -- and some judge will give it the nudge-nudge-wink-wink, and the precedent will be set.
Cousin Dave at January 5, 2012 7:01 PM
As near as I can tell, whether illiteracy due to not paying attention in school is an ADA-qualified disability has not been tested in court.
Posted by: Cousin Dave at January 5, 2012 7:01 PM
Reminds me of something tangential.
Mary Leonhardt (a 9th-grade teacher) wrote a terrific book called "Parents Who Love Reading, Kids Who Don't." She said she's lost track of the number of parents who come to her at the beginning of the school year and say sadly: "I just don't know why he doesn't like to read. We've read to him ever since he was a baby." She said that very often in those cases, the previous teacher was to blame.
I believe her. However, there's another problem - preteen kids who love to LISTEN to adults reading good literature aloud, but who can't be bothered to pick up books themselves - at least, not books without pictures in them. My hunch is that a lot of parents, in their enthusiasm for reading aloud, forget to demand something in return - namely, that kids who can read should read every other page or chapter aloud to the PARENT, simply so as to become accustomed to the habit. (In the same vein, Dr. Spock wrote that parents who prevent babies from feeding themselves with spoons between 12 and 24 months are going to find themselves with toddlers who refuse to feed themselves, since making the effort is no longer interesting to them at age 2.)
However, in Jim Trelease's "The Read-Aloud Handbook," there was a girl (the oldest of four children) who kept pretending she couldn't read (and pretended she didn't even WANT to learn) because "The only time all day when I have my mother all to myself is when she reads to me at bedtime" and:
"She was afraid that if she admitted to being able to read by herself, then that was what she would be doing each night: reading alone. Beth felt her mother would go off to read to her sisters and brother and leave her without that intimate sharing time each night. As soon as the parent and teacher were able to convince Beth that her mother would continue their bedtime reading ritual, Beth became one of the best readers in the class."
So, my point is that while of course you have to demand that kids read on their own from an EARLY age, you don't want to cut them off from the pleasure of being read to, especially if they very much want your company in general.
lenona at January 7, 2012 9:08 AM
Leave a comment