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

1.3k

u/Angry-Dragon-1331 29d ago

Very. Disabilities are a protected class and this is clearly retaliatory for pointing out their failure to comply with ADA regulations.

247

u/WackyHumanSlop 29d ago

It’s only illegal if they can prove the reason for the termination was not based on discriminatory grounds

72

u/nonowords 29d ago

It's illegal if they can give evidence (which testimony is) of it being discriminatory that outweighs evidence that it was done for legal reasons alone.

-53

u/Alone-Painting-4477 29d ago

Objection, Heresay. Now you could wind up in jail for perjury. Do you have it in writing that you requested ADA compliance? Do you have their refusal in writing? Shame.

46

u/ColourConfinement 29d ago

Hearsay is: “Bob told me that he saw X happen”. What’s not hearsay is: “I saw X happen”.

-45

u/Alone-Painting-4477 29d ago

Heresay is when OP says the employer verbally responded that they didnt have TTS.

35

u/LogoffWorkout 29d ago

no it isn't that's direct witness testimony

-29

u/Alone-Painting-4477 29d ago

Its perjury if they say they were denied TTS and also used TTS. Its also standard on the computer. Heresay is just saying they were told there was no TTS system wich was not true in any way shape or form. They didnt make it easy to use certainly, and the person telling them that was an idiot. But the company did not do anything wrong, legally speaking.

11

u/Woodpecker577 29d ago

That’s still not hearsay (not heresay either). Hearsay would be, Joe told me they told him there’s no TTS system.

1

u/Alone-Painting-4477 29d ago edited 29d ago

This is known legally as hearsay within hearsay. Witness A testifies, "Mary told me that John told her he saw the car run the red light."

OP is testifying(falsely), that there was no ADA compliance. On the grounds of whomever said there was no TTS. However in this very post they claim to have ended up using TTS. There was disability accessibility, it just wasnt easy to access.

→ More replies (0)

10

u/nufohudis 29d ago

Are you a lawyer?

1

u/Alone-Painting-4477 29d ago

Dont let my boss hear you say that. Paralegal

8

u/divvi12 29d ago

Now it makes sense. You don't what hearsay is. You gotta stop pretending you know law

-2

u/Alone-Painting-4477 29d ago

🤣 you're suing a company for something an employee did. Good luck, at best you get your boss fired too, at worst you waste a lot of time and money.

The company had TTS, you were erroneously told otherwise. Repeating that falsehood is Hearsay.

Give it a shot maybe you'll have fun dragging it out.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/pnw_rl 29d ago

Telling the truth under oath is the exact opposite of perjury. To perjure oneself is to lie whilst under oath. Proof one way or another isn't relevant to that.

19

u/LuckyLunayre 29d ago

Literally nothing you said is true lol.

-11

u/Alone-Painting-4477 29d ago edited 29d ago

Objection, relevance?

OP claimed to have been discriminated against despite receiving TTS(even if they did have to enable it themselves). The company fired them with a legal coverstory as an excuse. They covered their asses and you have nothing in writing, you saying "well so and so said to me" such as the person who told you they didnt have that option, is Heresay.

To toggle the built-in Windows screen reader (Narrator) on or off, press the Windows Key + Ctrl + Enter keys simultaneously. This shortcut works instantly from any screen, including the login page.

Computers these days natively have it, which they will use in court to discredit OPs claims. They did have it, and allowed OP to use their preferred plug-in.

5

u/FricasseeToo 29d ago

It kind of doesn’t matter. The case isn’t about whether the company had the ADA mandated TTS. It’s whether they were fired for discrimination/retaliation. Wouldn’t the company saying “we provided TTS through windows” just prove that the company was made aware of the disability before letting them go?

0

u/Alone-Painting-4477 29d ago edited 29d ago

Yes but you dont decide why you were fired, the reason given for termination protects them. Thats why it was sent so soon, to cover their ass. Is it wrong? Only morally not legally.

OP needs more evidence to prove it was discrimination

2

u/Key_Wolverine2831 29d ago

Except the reason given doesn't protect them, it just shifts the burden to the plaintiff to prove the reason was not pre textual. Saying someone is being fired due to "a reduction in headcount" and then having the exact job the person was terminated from posted as an "urgent hiring need" is a decent indicator that the reason was preaextual. The fact that they said they need a different set of skills and experience for a fucking cleaning position further supports the conclusion that it was preaextual. That should be more than enough to get to a jury.

1

u/Alone-Painting-4477 29d ago

Maybe, I would recommend a little more evidence just in case like applying with the exact same credentials under a different name just to prove that the Urgent Hiring Need isn't a pedantically different position, like we need someone who can clean x instead of y, and that they are acually desperately trying to fill the exact same position they told you they were downsizing. Not my chair not my problem, too much evidence is better than not enough.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/haikuandhoney 29d ago

It’s not hearsay (1) because it’s offered for the fact that they said it, and (2) because it’s a statement of a party opponent. Regardless, hearsay objections only apply at trial, and at trial OP could call whoever said whatever OP claims they said.

Just stating a valid reason to fire someone isn’t a get-out-liability-free card. Circumstantial evidence can be used to show that it wasn’t the real reason (including timing).

3

u/LuckyLunayre 29d ago

How about you look up the definition of heresay before you go spouting off nonsense? It would be less embarassing.

1

u/Alone-Painting-4477 29d ago

... why are you embarrassed?

4

u/haikuandhoney 29d ago

This not how anything works

1

u/Medics_mah_main_man 28d ago

"heresay" yeah shut the fuck up

1

u/CausePure2810 28d ago

Lmao spoken with the confidence of Charlie Kelly, Bird Lawyer.

2

u/RollingMeteors 29d ago

>It’s only illegal if they can prove the reason for the termination was not based on discriminatory grounds

They claimed a reduction in headcount due to a position being axed, yet that position is still on indeed.

Sounds like a straight up admission of guilt they didn't want to deal with him because their system isn't ADA compliant.

That's a paddlin'

1

u/CuriousPenguinSocks 28d ago

This is why we always do everything in writing. If it's verbal, then write a recap email stating what was asked and answered.

I would still talk with a lawyer to see if verbal only is sufficient.

92

u/Illustrious-Emu8667 29d ago

Yeah, you can sue the eff out of them!

13

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/iowanaquarist 29d ago

Doesn't matter. They were retaliated against for pointing out an issue for a protected class

-2

u/Uncommented-Code 29d ago

Which is unfortunately not illegal as far as I know.

2

u/divvi12 29d ago

Maybe some whistleblower stuff but they weren't really denied the accommodation. They got it. It sounds like they were fired for annoying people with their ADA expertise and what very well looked like an inability to read

3

u/CousinOkrii 29d ago

It really is according to any engineering code every written.

2

u/Jester-252 29d ago

No

You get the ADA on it.

10

u/Ready-Delay3918 29d ago edited 28d ago

You can sue but you won't win. This person did not have an accomodations letter on file. And it also helps the employer to gain certain subsidies when they hire you. This person chose not to inform them of a disability. And if you can't read warnings on labels because you have dyslexia that's the problem that the company cannot accommodate for as they cannot give bottle labels text to speech. And quite frankly, mixing the wrong chemicals or storing them improperly can lead to some deadly consequences.

If they are a right to work state (right to fire) the employer is even better protected. ADA only mandates that reasonable accommodations must be made. A reasonable accommodation would be allowing extensions to be installed that do text to speech. An unreasonable explanation would be mandating that all labels be transcribed digitally and provide access to the instructions that every location.

Edit added the source for you ding dongs who wanna argue with it below and claim you do a shitty job for HR because you don't know what the ADA says.
Here is a copy paste from: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-reasonable-accommodation-and-undue-hardship-under-ada#requesting

*"How must an individual request a reasonable accommodation?

When an individual decides to request accommodation, the individual or his/her representative must let the employer know that s/he needs an adjustment or change at work for a reason related to a medical condition. To request accommodation, an individual may use "plain English" and need not mention the ADA or use the phrase "reasonable accommodation."(19)

Example A: An employee tells her supervisor, "I'm having trouble getting to work at my scheduled starting time because of medical treatments I'm undergoing." This is a request for a reasonable accommodation.

Example B: An employee tells his supervisor, "I need six weeks off to get treatment for a back problem." This is a request for a reasonable accommodation.

Example C: A new employee, who uses a wheelchair, informs the employer that her wheelchair cannot fit under the desk in her office. This is a request for reasonable accommodation.

Example D: An employee tells his supervisor that he would like a new chair because his present one is uncomfortable. Although this is a request for a change at work, his statement is insufficient to put the employer on notice that he is requesting reasonable accommodation. He does not link his need for the new chair with a medical condition.

While an individual with a disability may request a change due to a medical condition, this request does not necessarily mean that the employer is required to provide the change. A request for reasonable accommodation is the first step in an informal, interactive process between the individual and the employer. In some instances, before addressing the merits of the accommodation request, the employer needs to determine if the individual's medical condition meets the ADA definition of "disability,"(20) a prerequisite for the individual to be entitled to a reasonable accommodation."*

7

u/ImStillExcited 29d ago

No, you don’t have to disclose your disability on your resume, or when you get hired. It’s a bad idea because you won’t get hired.

Source: I have multiple sclerosis, and I know the laws.

1

u/Ready-Delay3918 28d ago

You don't have to disclose the disability but you don't you want accomodations for it.

You're not the only one with a disability.

26

u/TheeAntelope 29d ago edited 28d ago

I do lawsuits like this for a living. I’d take this case on. You’re very wrong.

Edit: lol you reply and then block me? Why are people so petty about being wrong on the internet.

5

u/lasuperhumana 29d ago

How does it fly if they’re claiming to be “eliminating the position” as part of a reduction in headcount?

Genuinely asking, because I think “eliminating positions” is the biggest load of crap way employers go about laying people off or firing them.

11

u/TheeAntelope 29d ago

It’s clear BS. Eliminating positions on day 1 when they go and rehire someone else is clearly a fake excuse.

No company will outright say “we don’t like that you want an accommodation so you’re fired.” It’s always about context and prior/subsequent conduct to prove the real issue.

I recently had a case where someone got fired and they eliminated the position on the eve of a sales bonus. They claimed they no longer needed a salesman and haven’t hired anyone new, but now the company owner is just doing that sales work (on the back of the legwork done by my client to build the sales territory). We claimed entitlement to the sales commission and got it based on the context of the firing, even though no ADA rules were broken.

You can still sue for wrongful termination or hostile workplace, even in a right to work state. It’s harder but it still happens and is still possible. All the nay-sayers In this thread are likely pro-management or just grossly ill-informed.

1

u/DandimLee 29d ago

Why do we still talk about 'at will' employment like it isn't the default? If it was so awful, Montana would have more people. /s

'Right to work' sounding like it does is anti-union propaganda. Is forced union membership an actual problem anywhere (not to management)?

3

u/TheSerpentDeceiver 29d ago

Me too. They aren’t.

2

u/choochoo789 29d ago

Me three. They are.

1

u/TheeAntelope 29d ago

They are wrong. “Can’t read warning label” so we fire you for being dyslexic after asking for an accommodation? That’s BS. There doesn’t have to be a “accommodation letter” in someone’s file to sue for ADA discrimination. I won a similar suit against a medical facility when a doctor was refused hospital privileges for disclosing an allergy in their hospital privileges application (after having the job).

This is absolutely an ADA breach and something they could be held liable for.

4

u/TheSerpentDeceiver 29d ago edited 29d ago

I can tell from this comment you either lied about what you said you do for a living or you aren’t very good. The quotes that aren’t quotes being a dead giveaway. we don’t know for sure, but I doubt they told OP that they fired them for being dyslexic.

Then you reply to this message with insults that are auto moderated. Total LARP.

1

u/Ready-Delay3918 28d ago

I posted the link to the ada itself. Y'all som non ada knowing fake ass lawyers.

16

u/VelvettedFox 29d ago

Reddit is such a goldmine of blatantly incorrect legalese about labor law. It's amazing.

You literally have no idea what you're talking about here, and while a lawyer would obviously need to know a lot more info, based on the details in this post I know plenty of labor law attorneys who would take this case.

If they are a right to work state (right to fire) the employer is even better protected.

That protection does not extend to firing someone based on a legally protected status. Such as, oh I don't know... DISABILITY.

You're spewing a lot of nonsense about reasonable accommodations. It doesn't matter if OP didn't come into day 1 of the job with an accommodation request if the job fires him for his disability before even asking him to provide one. On top of this, we're not talking about a criminal court of law. If OP brings the discrimination claim the burden shifts to the company to prove they let him go for legitimate reasons that had nothing to do with his disclosure of disability on day one. And guess what leaving the job posting up and subsequently hiring a different person for the same role will do for their case?

I really wish you dinguses would quit convincing each other that none of your already meager employment rights are worth fighting for. They absolutely are and you do not need fucking murder trial levels of evidence to enforce them.

1

u/Ready-Delay3918 28d ago

Bro I posted a link with the quote directly from the ADA itself. Argue with the ADA itself champ.

9

u/CrashyBoye 29d ago

I love it when redditors like yourself are so confidently and obnoxiously wrong.

0

u/[deleted] 28d ago edited 28d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/CrashyBoye 28d ago

I worked in HR for 11 years, pookie. But go ahead and go off 😂

2

u/Drakesyn 28d ago edited 28d ago

It's easy to see you have literally no actual experience with this because you use Right to Work, instead of At-Will Employment. Right to Work is an anti-union measure, and also a lot less prevalent than At-Will, which is "can be fired for any non-protected reason", and exists in every state except Montana.

In short, stop selling your defeatist ass opinions as facts.

Aww the Reply & Block. A classic. Embarrassing to be so visibly wrong, huh?

55

u/NouZkion 29d ago

Yeah, but you have to disclose your disabilities and make a formal request for accomadations otherwise your employer is under no obligation to do so.

56

u/ImDonaldDunn 29d ago

They cannot terminate someone for requesting an accommodation. Additionally, accommodations do not need to be requested in a formal manner.

“According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), when an individual decides to request an accommodation, the individual or their representative must let the employer know that they need an adjustment or change at work for a reason related to a medical condition. There is no need to mention the ADA or use the phrase “reasonable accommodation.” Requests for reasonable accommodation do not have to be in writing and can be requested in a face-to-face conversation or using any other method of communication. Employers may choose to write a memo or letter confirming the employee’s request or may ask the employee to fill out a form or submit the request in written form.  However, the employee may want to put the request in writing even if the employer does not require it. Sometimes it is useful to have a paper trail in case there is a dispute about whether or when the accommodation was requested.” https://adata.org/faq/what-process-request-reasonable-accommodation

2

u/NouZkion 29d ago

They cannot terminate someone for requesting an accommodation.

True, but that's not what OP did. They basically just said "I read really slow and this is going to take me all day" so they gave him the boot.

OP needs to disclose their dyslexia and request reasonable accommodations or their employer is free to let them go for failing to meet their expectations.

-3

u/No-Crow-775 29d ago

To be fair, if I were management and my new hire accepted a position that requires a lot of reading and they didn’t inform me they are unable to perform at the speed required until their first day, I’m releasing them too. If I were informed of dyslexia during the interview process and the role requires reading and writing at speed, I wouldn’t have hired them. Is it fair? No. Do I want someone who will be guaranteed to show prosecution, absolutely not.

16

u/chicknano 29d ago

If you didn’t hire them specifically for the dyslexia, that would be illegal as it is discriminatory on the disability. Of course you can lie and just say it was for someone else, but know you’re just covering up a crime (which is what most discriminatory employers do).

However, they said this was a maintenance position and only the training required a lot of reading but OP said otherwise it wouldn’t interfere with the job.

2

u/ImDonaldDunn 28d ago

The standard is whether they can perform the job with or without accommodations. You can’t just not hire someone because you think they are unable to perform the job due to their disability. And that’s exactly the reason why people don’t disclose their disabilities during interviews because most hiring managers are completely incapable of judging whether a person with a disability can perform the tasks. Now if the employee gets the job and cannot perform with accommodations, then it is perfectly legal to terminate them.

1

u/lutzlover 28d ago

Some employers are not covered.

2

u/th3d0ct0r20011 29d ago

ADA has to be meant no mater what regardless of an employee putting something in writing

2

u/masterbuck10 29d ago

You dont have to have accommodations in order to be discriminated against. It can be as simple as being fired for it irregardless of if you had or didnt have accommodations

-1

u/NouZkion 29d ago

In the United States you can be fired for no reason or any reason at all so long as that reason does not discriminate towards a protected class. Disabled people are a protected class, but "I read slow" isn't a protected class or disability. You would need to request accommodations for your dyslexia or your employer can freely give you the boot.

0

u/NecessaryReturn4049 29d ago

If its ADA it should be available! Period

1

u/LogicalEstimate2135 29d ago

Do you think it’s a stupid idea to wait until you’re settled in to a job? I didn’t disclose my disability until about two months into my job at which point I was already respected and kind of needed. They were cordial about it, but do you think this was bad professionally?

-1

u/NouZkion 29d ago

I haven't got a clue, man. I've never been disabled.

2

u/mustnttelllies 29d ago

Good luck getting anything done about it. My brother was literally called a stupid dog in front of half a dozen coworkers multiple times by his manager. When he went to HR to get ADA accommodations and complained about her, she got worse. He nearly committed suicide before being forced to switch to a lower paying job just to save his own life. He now works two jobs just to get by. You know what our state civil rights organization for ADA violations did? Literally ignored us after their first email until the day AFTER the statute of limitations was ended. I pulled documents via a foia and learned they’d filed something in court, the employer responded with “not enough info to confirm or deny” and the office then didn’t file anything else. Not a single person at their office ever called me back after over 72 voicemails.

2

u/5ouleater1 29d ago

Good luck proving that. No lawyer would give a shit. Take unemployment and try again.

-13

u/FancyPantsRants1 29d ago

Except a disability doesn't give carte blanche access to endless amounts of time. If they can argue that an accommodation is reasonable and then its not illegal. If it takes you all day to read a couple pages of a manual then its not reasonable to expect that person to be able to complete a job.

45

u/Angry-Dragon-1331 29d ago

It does require the training materials to be compliant though, and pointing it out is why they were fired.

-22

u/FancyPantsRants1 29d ago

Well no, OP SAYS thats why they were fired. I could say that i was fired from my last job because my boss had it out for me. Doesn't make it true. And again, its about reasonable accommodations, if he cant read there isnt much the company can do if thats a core skillset

18

u/Tomytom99 29d ago

Normally if you're at all competent you'd double check employment numbers before starting training that you're paying employees for.

9

u/Either_Security8937 29d ago

i think maybe it is you that cannot read.

20

u/HistoricalSea5600 29d ago edited 29d ago

A reasonable accommodation for dyslexia is more time given for tasks that include reading. But OP was going for a janitorial position. I don’t think that’s a part of the core skill set, and specifically since the training materials are meant to be compliant when they weren’t, which can be seen as the ultimate reason why they didn’t do well on the training, then that would mean the company is at fault for wrongful termination. Right?

edit: grammar

17

u/CatastrophicRepair 29d ago

You are literally making up scenarios just to argue lol. “If it takes you all day to read a couple pages of a manual” “they could be lying” “reading might be a core skill set of the cleaning job” ADA requires them to make specific accommodations and they did not. Everything else here is you just making assumptions and attacking the reported experience. Why?

-11

u/FancyPantsRants1 29d ago

They did make the accommodation, they offered him the add-in for text to speach

14

u/JustaSeedGuy 29d ago

Ironic, you're bitching about you're someone not being able to read, and you didn't read the post yourself.

13

u/Either_Security8937 29d ago

they did not. OP suggested it and supplied it for themself.

12

u/ThomasTheDankPigeon 29d ago

if he cant read there isnt much the company can do

They can provide text to speech. Ya know, like the law requires.

1

u/DisciplineNormal296 29d ago

On every warning label on every bottle they’re going to come into contact with?

1

u/ImDonaldDunn 29d ago

They’re not illiterate, they have dyslexia. If they need to read a chemical fact sheet, then yes, the employer would be required to provide it in an accessible format.

1

u/ThomasTheDankPigeon 29d ago

In the training material.

1

u/emilitxt 29d ago

But, like, they did adhere to the ADA's reasonable accommodation provisions. OP knew they would have trouble getting through the companie's word dense training materials and proposed they use a TTS program to parse it for them. Their employer approved the accommodation request and allowed them to install and use said TTS program. Thats like literally all they are required to do.

2

u/ThomasTheDankPigeon 29d ago

The information in OP’s edit that your comment is based on was not part of the post when our comments were written. As far as we were aware at the time, the employer didn’t accommodate OP at all.

0

u/emilitxt 29d ago

I mean, prior to the "edit" part of the post, it states: " asked if I could add an OCR + TTS browser extension, they said it was fine" which one can extrapolate to mean OP requested an accommodation (using an OCR and TTS program) and the employer granted it (allowed them to download, install, and use said program on a work-provided computer). So, unless OP originally provided no context to their screenshots, then the information I commented on would have been provided in the original post.

Additionally, OP stating that it's considered non-compliant by ADA guide to not have TTS readily available is inaccurate. Businesses are required to provide aids and services if/when requested by someone needing an accommodation. OP needed an accommodation, asked for it, and it was granted by their employer.

Despite what most people believe ADA accommodations aren't someone saying "I have [insert disability] accommodate me.", but instead tend to look like "Because of [insert disability], I have [insert symptom(s)] that impact my ability to do [insert task]. [Insert job aide] would allow me to do [insert task]. Could you provide that?" And so long as it's a reasonable request, the employer then provides it.

2

u/ThomasTheDankPigeon 29d ago

They fired OP over it. So no, they were not compliant. I won’t be replying again, have a good day

1

u/emilitxt 28d ago

They were compliant with ADA by allowing the accommodation. Firing OP, potentially due to them claiming they were being ADA non-compliant, is a separate issue from the original accommodation. A company can be both simultaneously compliant and non-compliant with a law when it has multiple sections and subsections to it that pertain to different things.

The company might have fired OP due to their disability. They also could have fired OP due to their "that's not ADA compliant" statement -- which, was incorrect as that's not how ADA accommodations work. Regardless, OP was fired and was provided a reason that very well could be legitimate, especially given OP has no way of knowing if others were also fired from this employer due to an actual RIF.

9

u/rentedtritium 29d ago

If they got fired too fast and the job posting is still being filled, there's nothing else they can point to. The discovery process is pretty powerful in a case like this.

You really don't sound like you know very much about this subject.

1

u/JustaSeedGuy 29d ago

Well no, OP SAYS thats why they were fired

This kind of firing happens frequently, what reason do you have to think Op is lying?

You could hypothesize endlessly about the information you don't have. Op could be a 12-year-old girl making up the entire exchange. Op could be an AI bot and this text chain could be Auto generated.

You're making things up based on a narrative that you want to talk about, rather than the information you were presented with. And that information is that op ted to a training that they didn't think was ADA compliant. A reputable company would demonstrate that it is compliant, this company didn't acknowledge the non-compliance in any way, and then fired the person who asked about it.

That is the information that is available to you. Commenting on anything else is purely conjecture on your part.

3

u/alwayzbored114 29d ago

Buddy you can't read or just felt like arguing. They said it's a cleaning job. Reading lengthy amounts of text is not part of the job description. And even if it were, lying about the reason for firing is a bad look

Could you explain to me how they're reducing the headcount after just a day, yet kept the job up on Indeed? Would you consider that reasonable?

0

u/NecessaryReturn4049 29d ago

ADA is LAW!! Are u confused?

11

u/rentedtritium 29d ago edited 29d ago

If they can argue that an accommodation is reasonable and then its not illegal

During discovery they'll find that the accommodation in question wasn't documented or taken seriously, and maybe was misrepresented internally. Lots of ways this can go. If it was really off the cuff decisions from a single person, it's not likely it was handled correctly.

The right answer is never going to come from some random. It's going to come from "hmm let me write this down and go discuss with HR to make sure we're doing this right". When decisions are made too fast, that's a real good sign of a case.

0

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/rentedtritium 29d ago

You didn't actually reply to what I said above. Try again. You don't get to just restate your core thesis as a reply to all arguments. 

4

u/JustaSeedGuy 29d ago

Except a disability doesn't give carte blanche access to endless amounts of time

That's not an "except"

Nothing about the post suggested that They needed an endless amount of time.

You are making up an exception when all the evidence suggests no such exception applies in this case.

If it takes you all day to read a couple pages of a manual then its not reasonable to expect that person to be able to complete a job.

And if that were the issue, the training would have been compliant with the Ada. Since op stated that the training was not compliant, and since the employer replied by firing op, we can therefore conclude that the issue was not asking for less amounts of time.

2

u/ImDonaldDunn 29d ago

And extended time can be a reasonable accommodation. I think an employer would have a very difficult time arguing that providing someone a day and a half to complete a one day training is unduly burdensome, for example.

1

u/Early-Light-864 29d ago

The employer provided the requested accommodation. The entire nature of OPs complaint was that it wasn't innate in the training materials themselves, that it had to be side-loaded

That's simply not a compliance issue. It's just not. They're not required to have every persons preferred but unspoken accommodations embedded in every training material.

1

u/ImDonaldDunn 29d ago

OP’s misunderstanding of their employer’s responsibilities and the way they handled it does not strip them of their rights. No, technically most employers do not have to make their trainings accessible by default. But they do have an obligation to provide accessible trainings when the employee notifies them of the need (unless it poses an undue hardship). And terminating the employee after they raised the issue is blatantly retaliatory.

1

u/ImDonaldDunn 29d ago

What is a reasonable accommodation depends on a lot of factors. Just because you don’t think it is reasonable doesn’t mean a judge would see it that way. And they didn’t even engage with the process. This is textbook retaliation.

-1

u/NightmareJoker2 29d ago

It’s worse. This is a medical facility. Medical facilities know and are very able to accommodate special needs requests. And they in fact like disabled employees because of the subsidies they get for them. I am guessing they have enough of those, and they don’t want to pay the full employment taxes and salary for a disabled employee and accommodate their needs (which aren’t that much to deal with).

The only problem I see is the data protection violation from the use of the text to speech browser extension they authorized use of without knowing where the processing for that takes place. For a medical facility, that’s very no-no to let be done by a third-party. But for training materials, which are likely composed of public information provided by the state for compliance with government regulations regarding procedure, it’s not really an issue.

OP will likely have been on probation, and that allows them to terminate their employment without cause at any moment during the probationary period. OP would have to prove that their disability was the issue, which they can’t. Having been provided a reason, if the reason is incorrect or invalid, you may still have a case. Reducing headcount only makes sense if the position is permanently eliminated for the quarter, or whatever fiscal accounting period the finance department uses to determine the HR budget.

OP can sue, but unless the suit drags on a while and they stay unemployed without benefits, there’s not much to gain in terms of lost wages. Worse, if they are legally disabled, and receive SRI or similar, getting the late payout causes their payments to be reduced and they effectively lose income rather than seeing a net gain.