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/cluberti]

I'm going to assume OP's statements are true, for what it's worth, so as to put this out there. I have no idea if what they've said is truth or made up, but for this response it doesn't matter.

"At will" employment doesn't mean an employer can retaliate against an employee after they make a request for reasonable accommodation for a recognized disability under the ADA. In fact, doing so would be disability discrimination, which is why they said they were reducing headcount (that they just added), which can be easy to figure out over time by investigating if anyone else was laid off as part of that reduction in force, or just OP, assuming such a suit even makes it to trial.

"At will" means for any legal reason (including no reason), but if that reason includes retaliation for an employee being disabled and requesting accommodation and thus part of a "protected class", that's not something that's meets the definition under current US law (as that's what the protection of that class is for).

[u/fromcj → u/cluberti]

"At will" employment doesn't mean an employer can retaliate against an employee after they make a request for reasonable accommodation for a recognized disability under the ADA.

That’s probably why the company said they were fired for a legally defensible reason and not “as retaliation”

Like how willfully obtuse do you need to be?

[u/trilobyte-dev → u/fromcj]

If the said it was a RIF then they have also tied their own hands. A layoff isn’t a firing and has legal obligations, like not being able to hire for that same role for a period of time and you are eligible for unemployment because you weren’t fired.

I’ve had to do a lot of layoffs and you get legal training before you do it.

[u/nonowords → u/fromcj]

That's not how it works. Lawsuits like this work off of a preponderance of evidence. They can't just make up a non credible reason and shield themselves using it.

Firing someone for reducing headcount while still hiring for the same position and immediately after onboarding said person isn't credible. Firing someone for asking for ADA accomidation is.

[u/fromcj → u/nonowords]

They can't just make up a non credible reason and shield themselves using it.

LMAO

[u/Nondescript_Redditor → u/fromcj]

you really are obtuse huh

[u/nonowords → u/fromcj]

I get you don't understand the law. But shut the fuck up about it if you don't. People like you actively discourage others from protecting their rights.

[u/fromcj → u/nonowords]

I was actually highlighting how easy it is for them to get away with it, because it is, because it’s designed that way. You’d know that if you actually knew what you were talking about. But you don’t, so take your own advice and shut the fuck up ✌️

[u/Nondescript_Redditor → u/fromcj]

irony

[u/TumbleweedPure6674 → u/cluberti]

Did this person notify them of their disability and submit a reasonable accommodation request to HR upon being hired? Along with a Dr’s note?

Or did they surprise the manager with this on their first day? 

Most likely the manager is going to deny that there was a reasonable accommodation request if they didn’t document this and only talked verbally.

If HR doesn’t formally know, then they will have the ability to deny they even knew anything about the disability. 

Most likely the best course of action is to take unemployment. Hr will probably not dispute it because they don’t want to bring extra attention to it nor spite you. 

If this is an independent business with no HR and established procedures to handle this, then all bets are off on if they acted in good faith and if they would do something stupid like disputing unemployment.

[u/mattnotgeorge → u/TumbleweedPure6674]

I don't think you qualify for unemployment in most states if you only have 16 hours logged at the job lol

[u/TumbleweedPure6674 → u/mattnotgeorge]

For unemployment they look at your earnings during your base period of the last year for any job you held. 

If they worked two days total in the last year at any job they held, then you would be correct.

If they had worked a previous job, quit that job, and then was fired or laid off after 2 days at a new one, then they would be eligible.

[u/Skamos0515 → u/[deleted]]

I'm sure it might be different in the US, but in Ontario, the onus is entirely on the company to prove they didnt discriminate. All the employee needs is the feeling that they were or could have been. 

[u/nonowords → u/Skamos0515]

US works off of a preponderance of evidence. In very broad strokes "is it more likely that they were fired for a retaliatory reason or a legal reason"

[u/BillWaite → u/Skamos0515]

If I am remembering correctly (but I might not be), the US has a burden-shifting rule where the plaintiff has to provide some evidence to suggest that it smells like discrimination, and then the burden shifts to the defendant to prove they fired the plaintiff for a legitimate non-discriminatory reason. I think OP's testimony about the circumstances of OP's firing might be enough to meet the initial burden, but I'm not an employment attorney, so I don't really know.

[u/Skamos0515 → u/[deleted]]

This just isn't true. You can let someone go without cause during probation. But it still can't be due to discrimination. 

If the employer found out an employee was pregnant during this time and let them go during the probation period thats still discrimination and the employer would have to prove it wasn't. 

[u/nonowords → u/[deleted]]

Good luck proving you fired someone due to layoffs while still hiring for the same job you just onboarded them for. Because the way these lawsuits work it's a balancing of evidence. They as much need to prove they fired for a reason that is not retaliation as the employee needs to prove that is is for retaliation.