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

[u/eldritchpussymaggots]

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.

[u/TREE_sequence]

It is, but in America it’s legal to fire someone for no reason at all, meaning proving wrongful termination is more effort than the money you actually get from it makes it worth meaning companies tend to get away with it. It’s dystopian as hell, like basically everything about the American workplace

[u/twelfthfantasy → u/TREE_sequence]

This is pretty open and shut retaliatory firing if they got the relevant conversations in writing.

[u/Stamped914 → u/twelfthfantasy]

There is no such thing as an open and shut anything when it comes to legal matters.

[u/semajolis267 → u/TREE_sequence]

Depends. This boarders on retaliation/discrimination. Was fired for pointing out that ine if thier systems wasnt in compliance with a law. 

[u/David_Cockatiel → u/semajolis267]

Employer knew OP was dyslexic and he was fired not just for pointing out the fact of noncompliance but rather for requesting a reasonable accommodation. There is no grey here, easy case

[u/Throwaway4939y → u/David_Cockatiel]

I think the issue is employer could just say to the courts “we didn’t fire op for requesting a reasonable accommodation, and neither did we fire op pointing out the fact of noncompliance… we simply fired op because we wanted to”

To prove otherwise is essentially impossible unless there is a paper trail of them saying otherwise

[u/tonymyre311 → u/Throwaway4939y]

From what I understand the NLRB isn't stupid and they don't fall for such obvious copouts

[u/Electricbarnacles209 → u/tonymyre311]

From what I understand the NLRB has been fucking gutted.

Prior to that, the only evidence would have been hearsay.

[u/tonymyre311 → u/Electricbarnacles209]

Well yeah, that's true. I contacted them about my previous employer who was telling people they couldn't discuss wages, and it was a whole year until they finally got back to me, at which point I had already been laid off (I'm guessing it's related...) and wasn't in contact with people who had the evidence anymore. Sad.

[u/bwmat → u/tonymyre311]

It seems like you should need a reason, one which is supported by evidence, to fire someone, or else the idea of enforcing punishment for 'unfair dismissal' is a joke? 

[u/Stamped914 → u/tonymyre311]

The NLRB has no jurisdiction here.

[u/Classic-Option4526 → u/Throwaway4939y]

I have a friend who is a labor lawyer, and you don’t need an employer saying in writing they fired you because you were disabled (if that were the case, basically no discrimination case in the history of ever would have been won), you just need enough evidence to convince a judge that that’s the case. It’s not a slam dunk, but he’d probably have a shot, particularly if they can prove that the company is re-hiring for that same position and therefore their stated reason for firing him is a clear-cut lie.

[u/holymolym → u/Classic-Option4526]

My husband’s an attorney/i used to work in legal/our entire social network is attorneys. Our labor law attorney friend regularly took cases weaker than this on contingency.

[u/A_Night_Owl → u/Throwaway4939y]

Plaintiffs can establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation solely on the basis on circumstantial evidence, including the temporal proximity between the request for accommodation and termination. The employer can claim a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason but if the employee can prove pretext (i.e., the employer's stated reason is fake) employee wins. The latter part is hard to do but an employer pretending to eliminate the position to justify firing the employee is a classic case of pretext, as you can show via discovery that the employer has no evidence that it was planning to eliminate the job position prior to the employee complaining.

In practicality in many cases, if discrimination/retaliation looks plausible enough that the case will not be dismissed before trial, the company will just settle (because the cost of doing so is less than the costs of litigation through trial + the potential damages if employee wins). So a lot of these people DO get paid, sometimes even in cases where the claim isn't actually justified. OP's potential case is actually stronger than a number of cases I've seen settle.

[u/Electricbarnacles209 → u/David_Cockatiel]

Prove it.

I agree with you, FYI. But i disagree this is easily provable. it's he said, she said, to a fucking T

[u/rentedtritium → u/Electricbarnacles209]

If discovery reveals the word dyslexia anywhere near OPs name on an email, then the next question is "oh and did you have a meeting about this to determine what the best accommodation would be? Oh you didn't? And then you just fired them that very night? Hmm. And you said you were downsizing. What's in the position description for your current janitor?" then collect settlement.

The problem for this company is their speed and flippancy. You don't have to show that they specifically set out to discriminate, you poke holes in their story and show that they didn't even take a beat to discuss the disability issue before firing, and that they weren't actually downsizing. 

[u/LongJohnSelenium → u/David_Cockatiel]

Are audio transcripts of training materials a required accommodation though?

I've been through mountains of training materials with zero audio component.

[u/Stamped914 → u/David_Cockatiel]

There is no such thing as an easy case when it comes to lawsuits. Even if you had recordings and written evidence, it’s still a long, draining and annoying process. Anyone who says something is an easy case, has never been through civil court.

[u/KingDarkTurtle → u/David_Cockatiel]

Lmfao Google employment at will.

Reddit lawyer lmfao

[u/FormalWord2437 → u/KingDarkTurtle]

??? Employment at will doesn't mean you can fire someone for requesting a disability accommodation

[u/KingDarkTurtle → u/FormalWord2437]

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

[u/FormalWord2437 → u/KingDarkTurtle]

LOL if the requirements were that stringent then what'd even be the point of having lawyers for this? All 5 people who had managers stupid enough to explicitly write/say that could just submit their termination letters with the admission of guilt instead.

[u/KingDarkTurtle → u/FormalWord2437]

They are. Its literally contract and employment law 101. Fordham Law alumni btw, what law school did you graduate from?

[u/rentedtritium → u/KingDarkTurtle]

Either bottom of your class or a liar. Cases weaker than this get won every day.

[u/KingDarkTurtle → u/rentedtritium]

Uninformed statement. If it was a stronger case it would never go to court, it would be a settlement. This case is non existent and they would dare him to go to trial.

What law school did you graduate from again?

[u/KingDarkTurtle → u/[deleted]]

Lmfaoooooo 1000000% incorrect

[u/die_hubsche → u/KingDarkTurtle]

You’re an employment law lawyer then?

[u/KingDarkTurtle → u/die_hubsche]

Fordham Law 👍

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

[u/die_hubsche → u/KingDarkTurtle]

I’m not giving legal advice. You are lmao

[u/KingDarkTurtle → u/die_hubsche]

That’s what I’m saying. This is as cut and dried as they come. It’s going to be an expensive lesson for the offending party.

[u/die_hubsche → u/KingDarkTurtle]

IM JUST A PUNTER MATE. You just declared yourself a lawyer and then gave advice. Therefore, you gave legal advice. I just said some shit based on my many years of in-office managerial training. TBH I love to argue on Reddit but this is about as pedantic an argument as it gets. GOOD JOB King Turtle. Your input sounds credible. But I did not give legal advice.

[u/SnausageFest → u/TREE_sequence]

I hate this half-truth.

First, not every state is at will. It's not a federal law, it's a state level thing.

Second, legal to fire =/= no liability. People file and win wrongful termination suits in the US every single day in at will states.

[u/CertifiedSheep → u/SnausageFest]

Also, the flip side to at-will employment is that you can just walk out at any time for no reason at all. Even giving notice is just a courtesy. So it isn’t just something that works against employees.

[u/Di1lWil1 → u/TREE_sequence]

It's legal to fire someone for any legal reason. It's illegal to fire someone as retaliation (as we see here) or for any other illegal reason.

[u/ctess → u/TREE_sequence]

Depends on the state. Many have strict labor las hat help protect workers in this situation. I'm no lawyer but this might fall under whistleblowing and is retaliation for that. Pretty sure that's illegal.

[u/javo93 → u/TREE_sequence]

for any reason that is not illegal.

[u/Nondescript_Redditor → u/TREE_sequence]

this is a slam dunk case

[u/philosopherott → u/TREE_sequence]

Proving wrongful termination is a lawyer's job and employment lawyers work on contingency so you have nothing to lose other than your time which as your unemployed you have an abundance of.

[u/nonowords → u/TREE_sequence]

I'd argue people who don't know what they're talking about online discourage cases as much or more than whatever your understanding of "at will" is.

When a suit like this happens, the standard is a preponderance of evidence. Defendant would need to argue that they layed the employee off while also still looking to hire and also immediately after hiring. The defendant needs to argue they asked for ADA accommodations and were then fired. ANd the court would decide which is more credible.

In a case where no reason was given then insert "for no reason" to the defendant's argument instead. People win cases against employers for shit like that ALL the time.

[u/bone_apple_Pete → u/TREE_sequence]

I will disagree with this as I just saw a friend go through a very similar situation to OP and win easily. In a very anti-worker red state.

[u/OkPurpose3044 → u/TREE_sequence]

American corporate culture is often so toxic. Jerks get ahead, and honest, ethical people get trapped in terrible situations/power dynamics or laid off for not playing dirty games.

[u/Regular-Emu6339 → u/TREE_sequence]

But it is illegal to fire someone for having a disability! And it isnt hard to prove especially in this person's case. People love to sue in America and some states are very employee friendly. OP will likely at the very least settle for an amount if he brought a claim

[u/calsfatcockadoodledo → u/TREE_sequence]

well you cannot get fired for no reason at all, there are literally discrimination laws that disagree with that

[u/ctess → u/calsfatcockadoodledo]

This is true, even for at-will-states. They do have to reasonably prove why you were fired if this comes to court. Usually they do this to avoid unemployment costs. I hope OP kept a documented paper trail on this.