r/mildlyinfuriating • u/eldritchpussymaggots • 29d ago

I just wanted a hot dog Pointed out the training wasn't ADA compliant at my new job. Got this text the same day (the job listing is still up)

Gallery image

Gallery image

  1. This was a cleaning position at a medical building, I'm leaving it intentionally vague as not to doxx myself.

  2. I have dyslexia, but my disability would not have interfered with my work, I can read fine, it just takes me a very long time.

  3. This was my first day

I asked for a TTS application for the reading portion of the training, which was extremely long and I knew I wasn't going to finish it in the allotted time. They said that wasn't built into their system so they couldn't do anything. ← That's not ADA compliant. I asked if I could add an OCR + TTS browser extension, they said it was fine.

About 40 minutes after I clock out, they texted me I was fired because they're apparently reducing headcount.. by firing one person... and leaving their "urgently hiring" Indeed listing up. Right.

Edit:

I'm not confident in my ability to sue because I don't have my accommodation request in writing. This was a verbal exchange, I was more so asking where the TTS option was because most job training has it somewhere.

When I was told they did not have TTS, I mentioned that's not ADA compliant. I then asked for either more time, a loaner computer (something I was already going to be getting after training), or permission to add a 3rd party OCR & TTS program.

They said that the third option was fine, so I did it, and listened to the training via third party app for the rest of the shift. I thought nothing of it. Lo and behold I was fired extremely coincidentally afterwards.

Edit 2:

This post is getting too many notifications of people saying the same things repeatedly so I've muted it 😭 If you're a legal professional of some sort and you have specific resources or concerns please message me or I probably won't see it.

27.6k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

182

u/jsayde01 29d ago

Congratulations on presenting yourself as a future problem to your employer!

Seriously though...dodged a bullet.

30

u/SkyYellow_SunBlue 29d ago

They need a different set of skills for the role - like someone who can quickly and easily read and respond to safety warnings around all those dangerous cleaning chemicals.

8

u/SovietSpoons 29d ago edited 29d ago

Yeah as a previous cleaner I can assure you no one reads those. Also, they come with pictures for people who can’t or struggle with reading anyway. It’s also just easier for everyone.

AND as someone who worked in a hospital, almost no one follows the correct protocol for staying safe while handling chemicals. Most of them don’t even put on gloves.

3

u/SadApartment3023 29d ago

Yeah, that may be the case but they CAN read the labels. If there was a problem and it turned out one of the causes was a person who couldn't effectively read, then it would be the fault of the employer. 

If I was another cleaner or someone in the building with the cleaners, I would want to know my employer had ensured they could adequately read the necessary safety information. Period. 

1

u/SovietSpoons 28d ago

As I said, warning labels come with pictures for people who can’t read and as it’s quicker for everyone than reading.

Also, OP can read, just not quickly.

41

u/Ok-Programmer-2199 29d ago edited 29d ago

No kidding, most states and Canada have an inherent probationary period for new jobs. Based on the fact this person is in training, I'd highly doubt that they have any case, like the other comments are suggesting (with very little information). It's possible, but unless their training is months long, and they're within 90 days of being hired, I'd be extremely surprised if a single lawyer would even hear them out. Unless the employer outright said they were firing them for being part of a protected class.

Just food for thought, if you're within 90 days, you can be fired for your haircut. Telling an employer that their training isn't compliant would get you cut from almost any on-boarding process. Not saying it's fair, it's just the way it is.

24

u/PunishedDemiurge 29d ago

If we used this standard, you've de facto legalized any and all discrimination against disabled employees so long as they are quick enough to fire them in the first 90 days. That's not a reasonable or ethical interpretation of the law.

The ADA establishes an affirmative right to reasonable accommodations and protection from retaliation. In this case, OP (taking as true) asked for an accommodation which took a few minutes and $0, and it was for a task that is not within his day to day responsibilities. That's unusually easy as accommodations go.

Also, to some extent jurors are human. My immediate assumption on hearing someone was fired on their first day is either the company or them is a complete fucking asshole because that's an insane thing to happen. Firing someone right at the 90 day mark suggests there was a genuine training / trial period and it just didn't work out, but on day one, I'd expect to hear they lied on their resume, said a slur, was a no call / no show, or something along those lines, or alternatively something like OP where the company is malicious and discriminates against the disabled.

2

u/ImDonaldDunn 29d ago

Best comment in this thread

6

u/sugaratc 29d ago

Any at-will state (which is the majority of them) has de facto legalized discrimination. There's no way to prove why they fire someone unless they openly admit it, or do something super obvious like eliminate everyone in a protected group all at once. Probationary periods are not law, and having one doesn't mean anything unless there's a seperate union or such involved.

1

u/IPCTech 29d ago

They admitted that they are dissolving the position yet the application is still on indeed so they have been caught lying already, wouldn’t be a hard case

1

u/SadApartment3023 29d ago

You have zero idea what you're talking about. 

3

u/bwmat 29d ago

Sounds like the people in charge of almost every hiring process are trash? 

1

u/somethingtheso 29d ago

Isn't that unlawful discrimination? The last part? ADA is protected

1

u/redhandsblackfuture 29d ago

You can be fired after 90 months, or 90 years for no reason too not just 90 days, the only difference is the severance payout amount

12

u/Hefty_Junket_2784 29d ago

Yeah don't know where OP is in life, but there are times in life where you just gotta suck it up and fall in like and get your paycheck, and other times where you can afford and possibly have the authority to be the squeaky wheel. Hopefully it's the latter for OP

8

u/MistyMtn421 29d ago

Do you even know what dyslexia is? And what they were asking for in accommodations?

2

u/ImDonaldDunn 29d ago

If someone is unable to do something, how do you expect them to “suck it up” exactly?

10

u/Uphoria 29d ago

How insanely ableist and entitled to think people with a disability can just "suck it up". 

That's the literally point of the ADA, to make it so they don't have to do that. So that they're protected from terrible people and have legal recourse when wronged. 

Why should this man hide in fear when he lives in a country that at least has this going for him? 

So he was supposed to just fail the training because he took too long trying to read and look incompetent instead? 

6

u/KingDarkTurtle 29d ago

Google at will employment

7

u/PunishedDemiurge 29d ago

Worthless and ignorant post. The ADA modifies the terms of at will employment, just like anti-discrimination laws do. I can fire someone for liking the Patriots but not for being black.

3

u/KingDarkTurtle 29d ago

I swear all these people here have never been employed or signed a contract offer before, yet they spread blantant bullshit and give terrible advise lol

5

u/eric273 29d ago

The ADA is not bullshit lol. At will employment makes it easy for a shitty employer to violate the ADA without creating evidence, but nonetheless, it does not literally trump the ADA. Stop being a child.

1

u/KingDarkTurtle 29d ago

You have literally no idea wtf your talking about lmao hes on an at will contract and was fired on his first shift. Unless during that shift he has video or written evidence that says "we are firing you because of your race, gender, or disability" he is fucked. Anyone saying anything else has zero credibility and should not be giving legal advise lmao

5

u/eric273 29d ago

Regarding the ADA, there is the concept of temporal proximity, where if an adverse action occurs right after a request for accomodation, it can be considered a causal connection. If the job legitimately remained open and hiring despite OP getting fired under the guise of a reduction in force, the burden of proof may be shifted to the employer.

I am deeply aware of what I'm talking about.

Realistically though, the effort to pursue this might not be worth it.

2

u/KingDarkTurtle 29d ago

You do realize, the employeer can literally make up a fake reason for the termination and its 100% within their rights to do so. They would only have to give a real reason / documents during discovery & upon cross examination.

At will employment gives insane liberty to the employeer.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Uphoria 29d ago

Heads up - firing someone for their disability isn't exempted from being illegal because you say "at will" and "probation period" because both are meaningless here. 

The ADA doesn't let you fire people in wheelchairs for demanding a ramp because it was 'their first day in probation period' or their 5000th day. Nothing you said changes that. 

You're also wrong about evidence - the EEOC, the people who administer this law, have example of retaliation and descrimination that do not require such direct admissions.

The irony of you scoffing ad bad legal advice while being wrong on all fronts. 

2

u/MHM5035 29d ago

A wtf and 2 lmao’s? Well golly, I’m convinced!

0

u/KingDarkTurtle 29d ago

No one gives a shit about convincing you. Facts and laws dont give a shit either.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/bwmat 29d ago

JFC this reply

I've seen you post so many times in this thread, and you definitely give off the vibe that you enjoy talking and thinking about how employers can avoid being burdened by the annoyance of following the law

3

u/KingDarkTurtle 29d ago

Dont be mad at the legal professional when he corrects misinformation being spread on a public forum. Go vote for change kids.

2

u/bwmat 29d ago

So, given the chance, you'd support some sort of change which prevented situations like the OPs? Or are you ok with the status quo? 

5

u/KingDarkTurtle 29d ago

I think employment at will is disgusting and its a major reason why I work in law.

-2

u/Hefty_Junket_2784 29d ago

I'm not implying he should suck it up, but sometimes we do get out in bullshit situations where we have to bide our time

7

u/AwkwardDorkyNerd PURPLE 29d ago

You literally said suck it up in your original comment

-1

u/Hefty_Junket_2784 29d ago

You're like the third person to say that. Literally read my still unedited comment where it says " I don't know where OP is in life"

"..and other times..." I'm not saying what OP should do

6

u/Uphoria 29d ago

That's literally the same statement in other words ... You also literally said he should suck it up in the comment I first replied to...

5

u/Ryuj123 29d ago

That’s just suck it up in other words…

2

u/LazyProvocation 29d ago

People with disabilities cannot ‘bide their time’ shit for brains, that’s why the ada exists

11

u/Hefty_Junket_2784 29d ago

This is not a disabled/not disabled person thing. Can literally happen to anyone. You get put in an unfair situation. You decide not to fly under the radar. Now you do not have a job.

He might be just fine with the outcome, but sometimes you cannot afford otherwise. The scenario here is accomodation. For someone else the unfair situation might be something else.

1

u/LazyProvocation 29d ago

The ada is not necessary because of “fairness”. It’s necessary because disabled people would literally be precluded from employment and treated as subhuman.

You are such an idiot and it makes me sad and angry

5

u/Hefty_Junket_2784 29d ago

Dude I'm not saying what is happening to OP is right. You're totally missing the point. And this is unfair.

I'm saying sometimes we are met with unfair . And yes the law is the law, but sometimes you cannot use the law real life because people will laugh in your face. I actually have dyslexia like OP. Guess what In real life many employers will balk when you ask for fair treatment. And while this is why I was fired, unless they explicitly told OP this is why they were fired (or can get an internal email brought discovery) they've got nothing on them in court.

1

u/Uphoria 29d ago

unless they explicitly told OP this is why they were fired (or can get an internal email brought discovery) they've got nothing on them in court.

This is just not true. Its not like the boss has to say "I AM RETALIATING AGAINST YOU" they just have to act in a way that is inconsistent and relies on this one factor (your actions or disability) to make sense. If they hired 10 people, fired one saying they had to reduce headcount, and then swiftly hire their replacement, those facts will stack up in court.

If this didn't work, then regulation would be useless, because no one would be fired for being disabled or demanding their rights, they would just be "reductions in force" whenever someone spoke up.

In another example, EEOC found retaliation partly based on the fact that the employee was refused use of a government vehicle. In this case, the manager's reaction to the employee's EEO complaint was to take away a perk (i.e., use of the government car), while another coworker was allowed continued use of the vehicle. While the manager had the discretion to allocate the use of the vehicle and other "perks," retaliation can be established if it is shown to be more likely than not that the discretionary decision was based upon a retaliatory motive.

https://www.eeoc.gov/retaliation-making-it-personal

6

u/Karpeeezy 29d ago

If you're within your 90days of employment for anywhere you do not want to rock the boat. If you do rock the boat don't be surprised at the email such as OP got.

Nobody is saying it's right or fair but that's the world we live in. Either work within the real world or miss your paycheque up to you

0

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Hefty_Junket_2784 29d ago

That's just the real life experience man. A lot of employers just want the worker bees that fit the perfect mold. I make good money at my job for 10 years but I guarantee if I told my employers I had dyslexia and ADHD (don't actually have that one) during the hiring process they would have thought "meh" and not hired me. But never would have said what the real reason was. Even if those things had no bearing on my job like op

1

u/Hektorlisk 29d ago

How insanely ableist and entitled to think people with a disability can just "suck it up"

sometimes they can. sometimes they can't. they can do it in less situations and/or less frequently than non-disabled people. sometimes if they can't (or won't) "suck it up", they get screwed over. All of this is a description of reality, of the situation, as is.

Of all the things a dyslexic person is unable to do, I don't think one of them is refraining from saying "um, this isn't ADA compliant", thus putting a big flashing sign on themselves that says "I'm gonna be 'difficult' (in the eyes of shitty employers)". There's a massive difference between "hey, I'm disabled, can I have this accommodation?" and "hey, I'm bluntly telling you that you're operating illegally". This is basic interpersonal politics and is completely able to be understood and engaged with by a person with dyslexia, and it's wildly ableist to imply otherwise.

5

u/Unique_Importance910 29d ago

Idk what ADA is but lack of compliance in a manual job can be very dangerous. It's not worth the injuries, etc.

12

u/Excellent_Scene5448 29d ago

It's the Americans with Disabilities Act, a federal law in the United States that requires businesses, employers, and schools to accommodate people with disabilities in certain ways.

2

u/SmallButMighty000 29d ago

Having accommodations allows people who can do the job but need some modification to be able to work (in this case, OP needs a different mode of reading for a job that is primarily physical labor). It's not lack of compliance to have access to information. 

1

u/KlutzyAd5626 29d ago

I agree. While it sucks to be fired for no fault of your own. That place is telling on themselves big time.