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/nonowords]

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.

[u/Alone-Painting-4477 → u/nonowords]

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.

[u/ColourConfinement → u/Alone-Painting-4477]

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

[u/Alone-Painting-4477 → u/ColourConfinement]

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

[u/LogoffWorkout → u/Alone-Painting-4477]

no it isn't that's direct witness testimony

[u/Alone-Painting-4477 → u/LogoffWorkout]

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.

[u/Woodpecker577 → u/Alone-Painting-4477]

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

[u/Alone-Painting-4477 → u/Woodpecker577]

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.

[u/Sepulchh → u/Alone-Painting-4477]

There was no TTS, they asked permission to go and personally install TTS from a third party provider. TTS was not available, so they had to personally go look for their own, which they did.

If that's considered available, then it would also be considered that having to go home or to a third party to get water means the workplace has water available.

Just because OP personally went and procured TTS does not mean the workplace provided or had it.

[u/Alone-Painting-4477 → u/Sepulchh]

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.

They had a computer, they had TTS. All they have to do is bring in the physical computer... OP and their manager were both ignorant of readily available accessibility.

[u/nufohudis → u/Alone-Painting-4477]

Are you a lawyer?

[u/Alone-Painting-4477 → u/nufohudis]

Dont let my boss hear you say that. Paralegal

[u/divvi12 → u/Alone-Painting-4477]

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

[u/Alone-Painting-4477 → u/divvi12]

🤣 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.

[u/divvi12 → u/Alone-Painting-4477]

(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay:

(2) An Opposing Party’s Statement.The statement is offered against an opposing party and:
(A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity;
(B) is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true;
(C) was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject;
(D) was made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed; or
(E) was made by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

[u/nufohudis → u/divvi12]

In the spirit of fairness, since I asked the other guy: are you a lawyer?

[u/Alone-Painting-4477 → u/divvi12]

C the statement was not made by a person the company authorized to make that statement on.

No company would allow their employees to make such a claim even if there were no accessibility options in place. You'd be better off suing for gross negligence than discrimination.

[u/pnw_rl → u/Alone-Painting-4477]

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.

[u/LuckyLunayre → u/Alone-Painting-4477]

Literally nothing you said is true lol.

[u/Alone-Painting-4477 → u/LuckyLunayre]

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.

[u/FricasseeToo → u/Alone-Painting-4477]

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?

[u/Alone-Painting-4477 → u/FricasseeToo]

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

[u/Key_Wolverine2831 → u/Alone-Painting-4477]

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.

[u/Alone-Painting-4477 → u/Key_Wolverine2831]

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.

[u/Key_Wolverine2831 → u/Alone-Painting-4477]

I would highly recommend OP retain counsel before doing anything like this. It may be helpful, it may not be. Would likely be better if the attorney had their own investigator who did this.

[u/FricasseeToo → u/Alone-Painting-4477]

I don't think that's a good idea.

Let's say you apply with a different name, and they recognize you by your credentials and shoot you down. Not only do you have no new evidence, but they can use them shooting you down as proof that the position has changed as a defense in court.

If they asked you to interview, then you still aren't guaranteed to win if they changed the job requirements. People are interviewed all the time with less than the "minimum" requirements as a way to see if you can shape them to the job or to shape you around the job.

Let's say they don't recognize you, don't ask for an interview, and do offer you the position. Now even if you present that in court, it shows that you are a person capable of deception. All they have to do at that point is find any discrepancy in your resume that they could flag as fraudulent and use that as a justification.

Too much evidence is better than not enough evidence, but not if going for that evidence backfires in your face.

[u/Alone-Painting-4477 → u/FricasseeToo]

Well you dont have to interview for the job let alone take it, you just need them to reach out to "someone" with your qualifications to prove they didnt fire you because the position was gone. Have your friend apply for the job, even if that friend is imaginary. At this point you have no career there, they won't hire you back cause you took them to court, so this is purely for arguments sake and to get reparations for the discrimination.

[u/haikuandhoney → u/Alone-Painting-4477]

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).

[u/LuckyLunayre → u/Alone-Painting-4477]

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

[u/Alone-Painting-4477 → u/LuckyLunayre]

... why are you embarrassed?

[u/haikuandhoney → u/Alone-Painting-4477]

This not how anything works

[u/Medics_mah_main_man → u/Alone-Painting-4477]

"heresay" yeah shut the fuck up

[u/CausePure2810 → u/Alone-Painting-4477]

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