Blind but qualified: Dismissed candidate sues and wins big
February 8, 2010 by Sam NarisiPosted in: Disability discrimination, HR Tech, Special Report - Tech
Here’s an easy recipe for a lawsuit: A manager sees a resume and likes the candidate’s qualifications — but after meeting the applicant in person, immediately changes his mind.
That happened in one recent case.
An employee applied online for a job at a debt collection agency. She had eight years of relevant experience, and the hiring manager liked her qualifications enough to invite her in for an interview.
But once the candidate met the manager in person, she was immediately turned down for the job. Why? Apparently because she was blind.
According to the candidate, once the manager realized she was blind, he told her, “This isn’t going to work out,” and sent her on her way.
The woman tried to explain that she’d spent eight years doing similar work for eight years with the help of assistive technology for the blind, but again the manager told her she wouldn’t be considered for the job.
She took her complaints to the EEOC, which helped her sue. She won a $55,000 settlement.
This case highlights the need to train managers on disability discrimination while recruiting. Advances in technology have made it possible to accommodate more qualified employees than ever — and at a lower cost. According to a recent study by the Job Accommodation Network, 56% of accommodations cost nothing at all, while another 37% involve only a small, one-time cost ($600 on average).
As this case shows, failing to explore those options can create big legal problems — but that’s not all. As the EEOC’s lawyer in the case noted, the candidate had been successful performing similar work in the past, and company missed out on her skills and expertise.
Cite: EEOC v. Sentry Credit, Inc.
Tags: disability, Discrimination, online applicant
February 8th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by HRMorning and Sandra Young, Matt Stiles. Matt Stiles said: RT @Benifys Blind but qualified: Dismissed candidate sues and wins big http://bit.ly/bux68z #hr [...]
February 9th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
I can see where a blind employee could be a positive in a few ways: HR coup for promotional materials about how equality minded the firm is; they should be less easily distracted by the usual visual problems that sighted employees face. For the low cost of accomodation the firm could reap large benefits provided the candidate is truly qualified. The firm missed the boat on this one and was penalized for it.
February 9th, 2010 at 3:22 pm
What the Sentry manager missed was the applicant’s statement that “she’d spent 8 years doing similar work.” We hired a blind fellow for a telephone reception and referral service. We had some questions about how he was going to read the computer, but he and his former employer helped us secure the appropriate computer software. He’s doing a great job.
When someone has real experience that should be a main consideration in selection. A blind person may have a different kind of experience than we expect. Let the person with the disability help figure out problem areas – they are the expert on working with their disability.
We also found EEOC guidelines on interviewing the blind helpful.
February 9th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Looks to me like is was the HR professional who was blind, deaf, (and stupid)!
February 9th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Granted, the decision of the court comported with the law. But, somebody needs to be the turd in the punchbowl and to ask this question: Why should a PRIVATE corporation be required, by law, to hire anybody? Suppose that the corporate owners don’t LIKE blind people, or black people, or people with deviated septums? Whose job IS it? I’ll tell you whose job it is NOT: It is not the federal government’s! The federal government didn’t create the job, it did’t train it, and it doesn’t pay it. Why should there exist any law that says how a private employer should FILL it? These “Equal Employment” laws are a form of expropriation.
Without question, an employer misses a bet if it doesn’t consider all qualified applicants, particularly in industries where the customer base is multi-racial and possessed of many handicaps. But missing the bet is the employer’s business, not government’s. The feds need to take their “nanny” laws and jam them up the aft side slowly and sideways.
February 9th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Joe: Maybe it’s the government’s job because people’s (human beings) rights are more important than the right of the private employer to be just as prejudiced as he/she likes. You can think and feel and believe any way you want, but you cannot step on others’ rights. I don’t think you’d appreciate it if you were treated as “less than” someone else because of mean-spirited prejudice. It just may be attitudes like yours that birthed the union movement – a movement many think has gone too far, or outlived its usefulness, etc. But all these so-called “nanny” laws came about because a union or some other group saw that they were needed. With no protections for human beings’ rights where would any of us be? Everyone is, after all, a member of some group or other – even pure white, several generation Americans have ancestors who came from somewhere.
February 9th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Wow, Flee. Are you always this insightful? I suppose deaf employees are less likely to be distracted by their neighbor’s radio, and thus more likely to focus on their work? Please, just assure me you’re not working with members of a disability community so I can relax.
And Joe? While it’s true that morality can’t be legislated, think of how many qualified people would be turned away if a manager only hired Lithuanian gymnasts over 40 with red hair, to fulfill a personal prejudice or preference. Mayhaps some anger management training could put things into perspective.
February 9th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
All the employer needs to do is take the disability out of the equation. Make the decision based on skills assessment and then once a selection has been made consider what issues need to be addressed. If the employer bothered to take the time to assess the applicant in this way then this issue would not arise. I guess one expensive lesson to be learnt.
February 9th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
OK — I’m just kidding about this, so don’t hate me.
- How does this play out from a workplace sensitivity standpoint? No blind jokes? Can you E-MAIL blind jokes?
- How about sexual harassment? If she didn’t see it, did it still happen?
- What about common euphamisms? “How could you miss this??!! You must be blind!! OOOH sorry.”
I just CAN’T SEE it working out.
February 10th, 2010 at 8:52 am
To Joe Smith:
Wouldn’t want you and your attitude working for me.
February 10th, 2010 at 9:44 am
Cindy:
Joe is not saying that’s his point of view, he’s saying that the government does not have a right to tell a private individual (that’s what a private corporation equates to) how to run their business. And I agree.
If a company DOES choose to implement discriminatory practices, the outcome is that market factors would most likely drive them out of business. Yay! It’s called capitalism! It’s the concept that we all vote with our dollars, and if government stays the heck out of the way, we will all do a much better job at it.
Judy:
Your position is naive. You’re saying that an individual has the right not to be treated less than someone else. Again, a private corporate equates to a private individual. So if I’m on the street and someone disparages my race, gender, or disability status, you’re saying that there should be a law against that as well. My response to that is: Go to certain neighborhoods in Chicago (or any large city), and bring a lot of paddy wagons, because there are minorities out there who disparage middle-aged white guys. And it makes the middle-aged white guys feel inadequate. So where do you draw the line between protecting someone’s rights and infringing free speech. Precedent says that free speech is FREE unless there is some threat of imminent danger. Telling a PRIVATE (key word private) company who they can or can’t hire equates to censorship.
A couple of tough situations to think about:
- Let’s say a middle-aged white guy applies at a MWOB and is told: “you don’t properly represent our corporate image”…. hmmmmm….. is that against the law?
- A guy hangs a sign outside his restaurant that says: “Service will be provided only in English”. He’s not discriminating, he’s just saying that he doesn’t speak any other language but English.
The government only has the rights we grant it. People ALMOST always have a choice: They can opt for another job, they can buy another product or service, or they can do whatever they want. I say almost, because there are certain situations where people DON’T have a choice, and that’s where we need the government to step in and regulate.
February 10th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Bob: I’ll take my “naivete” over the cynicism – and I think “reverse” discrimination is still discrimination. I do not know the laws on MWOB (took me a minute to figure out what that meant!) – but maybe there is something in the law that allows them to promote their own over others. That does not seem fair either. I know that religious organizations, for example, are allowed to favor their own members. Somebody already said employers need to look at qualifications first, and then if accommodations are needed see if they can provide them without an undue burden. If you are on the street and are disparaged, that hurts your feelings but doesn’t interfere with your opportunity to support yourself and your family or to carry out other transactions of life. Somebody also said you can’t legislate morality. Well, with the civil rights and equal opportunity laws that have been passed, some people still hang on to their prejudice, fear of change, etc., but people who couldn’t count on equal protection under the law have made a lot of progress. There have also been abuses, too, but overall things are better. And some people (probably many) have actually opened their minds more with more familiarity and attitudes have improved. It’s a work in progress, just like all of us.
February 10th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
OK, Judy…
What you are describing is a great theoretical ideal, and most of the time, I think people act and react in their self interest.
Most of the time, people can overcome differences, but they seek the comforts of familiarity.
One thing that I question is why a PRIVATE (key word PRIVATE) employer has any responsibility to any individual short of signing an employment agreement.
In a public company, I agree that these controls should be in place (key word PUBLIC), but for a private employer, I don’t understand why there is an obligation to anyone (unless currently employed by the company in question).
I’m not saying that discriminatory thinking is correct (and I don’t think it is), but I do NOT think the government should be involved in PRIVATE matters, unless there is concern for the physical safety of others.
Just because someone on the street depends on there being a job does NOT mean there is an obligation for anyone (private or public) to provide a job that matches their need. We saw that quite explicitly after the “dot bomb” after the millennium. You had highly-skilled IT workers out of work for months, and many of them had to literally switch professions. In my mind, saying that a private employer somehow holds an obligation to any unemployed worker smacks of entitlement.
Again, in a PUBLIC company, or any GOVERNMENT JOB, I agree that there should and must be controls in place to make sure everyone gets a fair shake.
February 10th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Seems like the Euronationals like Bob don’t seem to understand that PRIVATE companies CHOOSE to provide EEO for their prospective employees. These PRIVATE companies DON’T have to provide EEO to their prospective employees but then, their markets would be reduced if the public found out they preferred Europeans over non-Europeans. I’ve made it really simply so you and others on this board could easily understand…..need further examples? Just check out some of the more affluent PRIVATE golf clubs for referencing………….