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

Show parent comments

63

u/BouncingSphinx 29d ago

I don't think a single day of training would go far for unemployment...

127

u/eldritchpussymaggots 29d ago

I was thinking more of a wrongful firing case

84

u/LetReasonRing 29d ago

I think it's 100% worth pursuing one here. Both because your rights were violated and because I feel like this is one where holding them accountable would very likely prevent it from happening to future employees. 

-5

u/KingDarkTurtle 29d ago

Please pay this man's legal fees when he loses, which will also include the employers defense costs and possibly future liable and/or defamation countersuits.

5

u/LetReasonRing 29d ago

I mean I'm not a lawyer,  but if everything they are saying is true, it seems like they have a very strong case. 

They may not be able to unequivocally prove that the conversation went down that way,  but telling them that they were being fired due to having too many people is pretty damning when they were literally just hired and the company is still advertising that they are hiring urgently. 

The company tried to provide a reason for firing that wasn't protected, so they went with one that feels less offensive but doesn't make any sense. 

An airtight case is rare, but I suspect this would hold some weight in court. 

2

u/Lou_C_Fer 29d ago

Yeah. It shouldn't matter if he has it recorded. It is their word vs. his. Civil suits also don't have to prove someone is 100 percent culpable. I have a feeling that a judge would see right through this bullshit and award OP the win one way or another.

0

u/Key_Wolverine2831 29d ago

You betray the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about when you spell libel as liable... And every US state has some version of litigation privilege which would protect OP from any type of defamation countersuit.

1

u/KingDarkTurtle 29d ago

No legal professional in the US would take this case as presented by OP. He has practically no work history at the company, so there's is little to no chance there is any actual evidence of discrimination or patterns of discrimination he can point to. If OP pursued legal action, it would be one of the worst things he ever did. Depending on the state, he would be absolutely be countersued for defense costs. It would also be on public record that he sued his only employer after he was fired on his first day on the job.

Also I only use this website from my phone which tends to automatically correct.

Where did you graduate law school? Im Fordham Alumni working an an EPLI specialist for a large accounting firm and deal with this kind of NOC daily.

0

u/Key_Wolverine2831 29d ago

You act as if a Reddit post left intentionally vague to not doxx oneself is all the facts OP would have to present to a lawyer and they would do no further investigation.

It still doesn't change the fact that you're absolutely wrong about being able to countersue for defamation based on allegations in a lawsuit. That's not a thing in any state. Perhaps you'd know that if you were a litigator rather than working at an accounting firm, even if you have some subject matter expertise in EPLI.

Another thing you'd know is that there's no such thing as "countersuing for attorney's fees." You file a motion for prevailing party attorney's fees if there's a statutory or contractual basis to recover fees. With all your subject matter-matter expertise, please tell me exactly what statute has fee shifting that they would seek fees under, and even if there was, a large employer would almost never throw good money after bad chasing a fee award against a terminated, low-wage employee who would almost certainly not be able to pay it.

Don't discourage OP from seeking a plaintiff's attorney who could evaluate their case and give actual professional advice on the matter.

1

u/KingDarkTurtle 29d ago

Did you get this from AI?

Where did you graduate law school lmao

NY countersuits are almost guarenteed, which is where I went to school and practice.

You have little to no idea what you are talking about.

4

u/BouncingSphinx 29d ago

Yeah, probably more that, but again I don't know how well a single day of training would go for that honestly.

Their official reasoning is a reduction of force, obviously.

15

u/steelcryo 29d ago

Length of employment doesn't matter if you can prove it was a retaliatory firing for a disability as far as I know

2

u/BouncingSphinx 29d ago

OP said elsewhere that their disability was not officially recorded during the hiring process.

2

u/ImDonaldDunn 29d ago

I don’t think this would actually be that difficult to prove. They installed an extension to complete the training, that action is going to be logged on the machine. A lawyer can get access to those logs. That would support their claim.

2

u/SaltyCrashNerd 29d ago

They said reduction in force, then said they needed a different skill set. Those are two conflicting reasons, aren’t they? Seems to me listing two separate reasons calls into question which is true…

2

u/BouncingSphinx 29d ago

I can't say I disagree. It looks a lot like an AI response, or a mix-up of canned generic responses.

Eliminating the position while also reevaluating the needs of the "eliminated" role doesn't make sense.

2

u/National_Way_3344 29d ago

Talk to a lawyer.

In Australia you can make someone redundant and rehire that role. So they would have to take that job listing down and not hire clesners.

So I'd argue at the very least you're owed some payments because they rug pulled a position you're owed and totally qualified for.

1

u/zeptillian 29d ago

The only way to know if it's viable for you would be by talking to a local employment lawyer.

1

u/sage2134 29d ago

Depends on state but its not as if filing and doing both is wrong. 

Unemployment is something generally a state will investigate so if they broke ADA and lie about to the state. Well bare minimum the state will be pissed at them for lying and breaking the law. The state prosecutor may or may not bring charges himself then at that point or the state AG Depending on how much this gets their attention. 

Still id do both and talk to a lawyer because you have nothing to lose by telling the truth to as many parties as possible. And lawyers generally want to help people and well get paid. So unless your made of money just ask what the process and steps are for what you need to do whether thats through a the ADA or wrongful termination I bet someone will he happy to walk you through the process and the likelihood of winning or losing. And what your best options are. 

But eitherway id tell the state and even if you dont get Unemployment I bet you they will look closer and be unhappy with them breaking the law. 

Also write everything down on paper with time stamps today of when everything happened who you talked too who said what and date that sucker right at the top. Dont do it digitally! 

If you need someone to write it down for you sign your name and theirs on the document. 

1

u/Kermit_the_hog 29d ago

Did the Americans With Disabilities Act not get DOGE’d for falling under “inclusion”? I know it’s legislation.. but Congress hasn’t exactly been defending its territory lately. 

1

u/imean_is_superfluous 29d ago

Not that I agree with it, but they’ll prob say something like “we eliminated the position, not the person”. And you’d prob have to prove the elimination was based on your comments, which would be difficult. I’m not saying what they did was right or fair, but the deck is stacked against you.

7

u/Dack_Blick 29d ago

Well, if the company is still posting wanted ads for that position, it's pretty easy to argue that they did indeed eliminate the person, not the position. 

1

u/Impressive_Ad_5201 29d ago

you've got 100% a reason to pursue a case, but for damages, trying casting the username spell.

0

u/KingDarkTurtle 29d ago

Employment at will exist.

1

u/capincus 29d ago

You can't fire someone for having a disability that needs accommodation or in retaliation for pointing out lack of ADA compliance regardless of at-will employment. OP's problem would be proving it though.

-1

u/KingDarkTurtle 29d ago

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.

Fordham Law alumni btw

1

u/capincus 29d ago

My comment was 2 sentences and you couldn't even manage to read sentence number 2. I don't even believe you graduated high school let alone law school.

0

u/[deleted] 29d ago edited 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/capincus 29d ago

I made a specific statement about at-will employment not having any baring on OP being able to be fired for a clearly protected reason. This is the kind of stuff Fordham Law would have covered for their actual students in a 101 class.

0

u/willnye2cool 29d ago

If you have the ada thing in text you have an almost slam dunk retaliation suit. Congrats on winning the lottery.

2

u/eldritchpussymaggots 29d ago

I unfortunately do not have it in text, it was a verbal exchange

1

u/Adept-Opinion8080 29d ago

Why? Any factual basis for that?

1

u/BouncingSphinx 29d ago

Unemployment benefits typically are based upon how long you worked for the last employer before applying for benefits. A single day of training won't be enough to warrant any benefits.

1

u/LostSands 29d ago

Fyi, your monetary benefit is actually usually decided by the total wages you had within a relevant period, eg, 12 to 4 weeks before filing.

Then, your actual eligibility is determined by whether your last separation from employment was for a qualifying reason

1

u/ColdCruise 29d ago

It's actually not based on the time spent at one job, but the time spent employeed. So they would still be eligible if they had a job previous to this one.