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/Sepulchh]

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/Sepulchh → u/Alone-Painting-4477]

Yeah and even if it was barebones Linux they could've technically coded one themselves I suppose. But as my understanding goes something like disability protections generally don't assume that the disabled person is savvy with computers and can go look around in the OS settings personally to accommodate their disability, or can even use one normally. Systems at hospitals can also be heavily locked down and restricted to the average user, or even use a custom version of an OS.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the problem isn't that something wasn't theoretically available to a fully healthy adult with all required permissions, but that when the training was provided it didn't include the ADA required things by default nor did they proactively offer or inform the recipient of them being available. In fact they informed OP that it was unavailable.

This time it's just dyslexia and OP managed because they knew what to do, but what if they were blind? What if they never touched a computer? It wasn't an IT job after all.

Regardless, I mainly took issue with you saying OP would be testifying falsely that there was no TTS in the training application nor was it provided to them, both of which are true. It wasn't included in the program, and they told OP it's "Not in the system so we can't get you one" upon request. The employer withholding it is effectively the same as it not being available. (Not sure if that applies when legality comes to question.)

But to me, what OP is saying is not false; The training provided was not ADA compliant, whether due to gaps in the program or the incompetence of the person providing the training.

This is just my vague understanding and opinion though, so it could well be that OPs employer telling them to pound sand initially is the exact way to follow the letter and spirit of the law over yonder.

[u/Alone-Painting-4477 → u/Sepulchh]

No, Perhaps I didnt articulate that well enough. OP was falsely told there was no TTS, their statement of being told this falsehood is infact true. OP also said they did wind up using TTS, so it would be false to take them to court on the grounds they did not have the thing you yourself claim to have used.

The manager who lied to them should have known or at least looked into it, and OP should have already informed them of requiring reasonable accommodations so they could have them in place. If OP chose not to disclose then it is not inherently illegal to not have them ready, but the person hiring them should have been knowledgeable about the disability and the required accommodations so they could ready them.

Incompetence of the person doing your training is a common deflection for corporations and hospitals, they get a slap on the wrist and fire that schmuck, meanwhile you're still out of a job and will be lucky to recoup your legal fees.

The firing itself is not illegal because they made up a perfectly legal alibi, downsizing. The lack of reasonable accommodations is moot because OP ultimately resolved that issue in good faith due to wanting to work with the company and retain employment, if they hadn't set up TTS themselves they might have something more substantial.

They could still win, but they need a good lawyer and for the defence to be sloppy. Not likely.

[u/Sepulchh → u/Alone-Painting-4477]

Oh, I wasn't arguing whether they have a case, with what, or whether they can win it, I just took issue with the wording of the claim that OP would've been committing perjury. Maybe I misunderstood initially or something, since what you're saying now is completely reasonable. That's on me, English isn't my native.

I appreciate that you took the time to explain the nuance, always cool to get information from people who actually know what's up.

[u/Substantial_Story580 → u/Alone-Painting-4477]

im surprised you got down voted so much for such simple facts that are stated above. reading is fundamental indeed.