ADA Discrimination - Wrongful Termination?

[katmo7]

I know someone who has a disability - diagnosed as mildly autistic at the age of two. He worked for another employer for over 4 years after graduating college. He decided to take the United States Post Office Exam and passed. He received notification that he passed and would be considered for a transitional letter carrier position after going through the process (interview, drug testing, a driving test). He went through the entire process and passed everything that was required. He then received a letter congratulating him and telling him he had been selected for a transitional carrier position with the US Post Office for a year and to show up for Training and Orientation ( a 3 week process). After receiving the letter of employment he gave his resignation notice to his former employer. He showed up and half way through the first week of training (on a Wednesday) they told everyone they would have to take another test (to do with driving rules and OSHA)and pass with a high grade in order to continue on. He took the test the next day after being informed and then the following day they told some people who didn't pass with a 90% or higher grade that they couldn't continue on and that their employment was over. No information about unemployment or their paychecks were given to them. This concerns me because this test as a condition of their employment was never communicated to them until a day before the test and after they received their employment offer. Secondly, he has a disability and was never asked if he needed accommodations to take the test. They responded by saying he should have spoken up about needing accommodations and it wasn't there responsibility to ask if anyone needed accommodations. This all seems very wrong and illegal to me. Is it?

 

[cbg]

BTW, I've deleted your duplicate posts. Once is enough. Thanks.

Did they have any way of knowing about his disabilty beforehand?

 

[katmo7]

Well he didn't inform them before the test, but they knew about it when he was interviewing for the position. Autism is a disability were you have troubling communicating/socializing effectively and I don't think he brought the fact that he is autistic and needs additional time to complete computerized test to the person who administered the test. However, with that being said I'm still wondering if it is illegal to offer someone a position even if it's temporary for a certain time frame as outlined in the offer letter then have the terms of it change? This happened to a few people and they were upset because they believed they were accepted to the position for a year as per the letter they received congratulating them. Most people quit/resigned from their previous jobs and now they are unemployed because they didn't score above a 90 on a test that is really irrelevant to whether or not they can do the job effectively. Shouldn't this have been communicated to them in the offer letter or something and also why wasnt' unemployment information given to them or their pay for attending the paid orientation/training?

 

[cbg]

The ADA does not require them to guess whether or not someone needs accomodation. If he needed an accomodation to take the test, it was up to him to let them know. I've always been taught that it can be a form of discrimination to assume an accomodation is required before it is asked for.

It is not illegal to change the terms of an offer unless they are set down in a binding and enforceable contract

I have no possible way of knowing why information about UI was not offered or why they were not paid for the orientation period. BTW, not all states require the employer to provide info about UI - in fact, off hand I can only think of two that do.

 

[katmo7]

Thanks. I wasn't sure if this was the case involving testing. I always thought the employer needed to at least ask if anybody needed special accomodations, like what is required on a job application.

I was always thought that employment relationships were contractual in nature and contained an implied promise of good faith and fair dealing. It was not documented in any of the letters received that the US Post Office was an at-will employee. I also thought if an employment letter specified the length of employment that would constitute as a contract for the length of time specified. My friend who is in HR said that you should never specify the length of employment in a offer letter and always make sure it states the organization is "at-will". Wouldn't this promise for a year of employment as a transitional letter carrier be an "implied contract" and an indicator of job security an employee has received? It seems to me that the terms of the employment agreement weren't accurately and fairly described.

 

[cbg]

Employers are not required to ask if employees need special accomodations on a job application, either. In fact, employers are very much limited in what they can legally ask about disabilities prior to hire.

Not all employment relationships are contractual in nature. Employment at will is the default in 49 out of 50 states, and in the 50th (Montana) employment at will exists at the beginning of employment. Your HR friend is referring to "best practice", not a mandated requirement/prohibition. Only an attorney in your friend's state who has read the letter in question in its entirety can say if it reaches the definition of a contract or not.

 

[Green_Hornet]

Talk to an attorney about detrimental reliance,the A.D.A does not appear to apply.