Bad interview; long and ranty

[NecessaryCatharsis]

Had the crappiest couple weeks at work, including a sucky customer extreme, a major screw up that was completely my fault, and this job interview, which made me furious. Happened over a week ago and I haven't heard back from him yet, so maybe this is over but.....

We are hiring tradespeople, and our ad, in part says: Lifting up to 60lbs. Working at heights, scaffolding, ladders, man lifts etc. Working in confined spaces, crawlspaces, attics, excavations. No experience necessary, will train.
In addition it outlines some of the duties expected to complete, obviously, from the description the entire job is fairly physically demanding.

Upstairs in our office is an empty office for salesmen to share and a small conference room, which we use for occasional meetings and I took over for the recent interviews. On the main floor is the owners, office managers and warehouse/dispatch offices and a large reception area.

From the conference room I texted the office manager and asked her to send up the next applicant. A few minutes later she texts me back: SOS come down. I go downstairs and she introduces me to the next applicant, who is seated in reception. I shake his hand and ask him to go upstairs for our interview. He declines and tells me he can't bend his knee far enough to climb the stairs. I ask oh, did you hurt your leg

No

It's a congenital defect with both legs. He can't climb a ladder, stairs, crawl, work on his knees etc. WTF! There is no part of our job he can, or will ever be able to do. Most of the houses we work in don't even have stairs at the entry yet, we often have to heave ourselves into an opening 4' high any way we can manage. So I explain to him that I don't think he will work out for this position, that perhaps construction is the not the field he is meant to be in, and he FLIPS. It is (so he tells me) against the law to discriminate against people with disabilities, I am unable to not hire him because he is unable to do any part of this job or he will sue our company, and give us bad publicity and blah blah blah. Our ad said we would train, and it is our responsibility to figure out a way he can do this job, and train him in it, and btw it is illegal to have 2nd floor offices and no elevator.

I'm pretty sure it's not illegal to not have an elevator, our offices aren't really public, customers rarely come and aren't expected to, the offices and warehouse are really for employees only. I'm also pretty sure it is not illegal to 'discriminate' against people who are unable to do the job. In a building in progress there are lots of things unavailable that most people would consider mandatory at a job, like smoke alarms, heat, AC, stairs to get to the 2nd floor etc, washrooms, etc

I mean I am a little colour blind, and therefore can never be a large ship captain. Is that also discrimination? At what point does 'unable to complete duties properly and safely' take over for 'discrimination'; or does it ever?

I hope never to hear from him again, I am supposed to do most of the HR work, and rely on Google mostly to make sure we are not breaking any employment standards. If we have to hire a lawyer to deal with this, I am on the shit list for a long time at work.

[Skittles88]

Thats not discrimination; thats listing requirments for the job. Every job has them, and I see NO reason why you would have to hire him if he can't do it. That guy is full of crap and it sounds like he just wanted to make a scene. Discrimination is when you won't hire someone based on race/gender/looks... Stuff that has nothing to do with the job.

[fireheart]

I agree-definitely NOT discrimination.

Not sure if it's the case in the US, but here, companies can discriminate based on "inherent" requirements for a job. If it can be proved that the person would not be able to meet the inherent requirements of the job (even with assistance), then that person can be refused hire. So for instance, if the job requires lifting 60lb and someone has back issues, even if they are provided with a back brace and people are helping them, they still can't do it, then they can be refused a job.

The issue with the 2nd floor office/elevator thing sounds more like the guy is complaining about something relating to wheelchairs and how they can access the 2nd floor....to which I have no idea. Anyone?

[Seshat]

In my area, at least, the legal requirement is "reasonable accomodation" for the disability.

That's stuff like providing a cashier with a chair or a stool rather than having them stand.
Allowing drinks, or a diabetic's meals and snacks.
Providing large print stuff, or a magnifier, or providing a monitor with more 'real estate' so using magnified font allows the person to still have enough stuff up.
Ensuring that bathrooms and break rooms are accessible to people of all levels of ability.

A complete rewrite of the job description is NOT 'reasonable accomodation'.


As for the first floor/second floor stuff: in Aussieland, if providing bathroom and break room access would involve building modifications, the disabled person & the business can ask for government assistance to handle the costs.

[sms001]

I'll agree with the others that this certainly doesn't sound like discrimination, Necessary. As for being on the shit list, management requiring you to do pretty legalistic HR work is kind of a rock and a hard place. I'd probably ring up the local labor board or equivalent and see if they can point you in the best direction.

[Der Cute]

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/disability.cfm
Disability discrimination occurs when an employer or other entity covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, or the Rehabilitation Act, as amended, treats a qualified individual with a disability who is an employee or applicant unfavorably because she has a disability.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/adaqa1.html
Q. Who is a "qualified individual with a disability?"
A. A qualified individual with a disability is a person who meets legitimate skill, experience, education, or other requirements of an employment position that he or she holds or seeks, and who can perform the "essential functions" of the position with or without reasonable accommodation. Requiring the ability to perform "essential" functions assures that an individual will not be considered unqualified simply because of inability to perform marginal or incidental job functions. If the individual is qualified to perform essential job functions except for limitations caused by a disability, the employer must consider whether the individual could perform these functions with a reasonable accommodation. If a written job description has been prepared in advance of advertising or interviewing applicants for a job, this will be considered as evidence, although not necessarily conclusive evidence, of the essential functions of the job.

further down
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/disability.cfm

Disability Discrimination & Reasonable Accommodation & Undue Hardship

An employer doesn't have to provide an accommodation if doing so would cause undue hardship to the employer.

Undue hardship means that the accommodation would be too difficult or too expensive to provide, in light of the employer's size, financial resources, and the needs of the business. An employer may not refuse to provide an accommodation just because it involves some cost. An employer does not have to provide the exact accommodation the employee or job applicant wants. If more than one accommodation works, the employer may choose which one to provide.

[Raveni]

While there may be no reasonable accommodation that could be given to enable this applicant to perform the essential functions of the job, there is something that you might want to consider. Your office area houses salespeople, right? Selling stuff would be an essential function, but being able to climb stairs would be incidental to that. How would you feel if this applicant was looking for a sales job?

There is a LOT of gray area in ADA. It's incorrect to say that it's illegal to have a second floor office with no elevator. However, especially if something has been pointed out, it is an accessibility challenge that should be looked at.

[NecessaryCatharsis]

Thanks all. Thanks to your reassurance, I've sanely spent the last two hours googling various employment standards in canada, and they all say much the same that the australian and american ones do, including 'reasonable accomodation', and 'undue hardship'. I am feeling much more confident about my ability to turn him away as a hiring prospect.

I think the thing that made me so mad was my two spontanious, simultanious reactions were: No, really, we don't discriminate, we love disabled people, we will find something for you, and No, really, you can't work in this job, at all, ever. I felt guilty, felt like backpedalling like crazy, and at the same time, really felt he couldn't do this job. It's a hard dichotomy to balance in your head at that moment.

As I saw, I still haven't heard back, so hopefully he has no follow up, and just intended to waste my time and yell at me for whatever reason. I do feel more confident in position if he does come back though.

[NecessaryCatharsis]

While there may be no reasonable accommodation that could be given to enable this applicant to perform the essential functions of the job, there is something that you might want to consider. Your office area houses salespeople, right? Selling stuff would be an essential function, but being able to climb stairs would be incidental to that. How would you feel if this applicant was looking for a sales job?

Our sales staff are expected to go on site, walk the whole thing, measure areas to be worked on and are often in the attic, crawlspace etc. If we had an opening for an office position that would have been acceptable. There is not very much 'essential' office things upstairs, just inactive files we have to keep for Revenue Canada. That would have been easy to work around. We currently have no office position open.

[mhkohne]

No lawyer here, but I bet you are fine. In the US at least, disability stuff involves reasonable accomadations. While one can certainly argue the limits of reasonable, A guy who can't even go up stairs simply can't be accomidated. Which is why you have not heard - no lawyer would touch this, it's stupid.

[wolfie]

From your description, this sounds like the equivalent of a trucking company refusing to hire a blind person or an epileptic (both disqualifications for ANY sort of driver's license) as a driver. Turning someone away because they can't perform an essential part of the job is NOT discrimination.

[cindybubbles]

I wear glasses, so I can't be a pilot. I probably can't be a flight attendant either, unless I switch to contacts or get laser surgery. But I have no qualms about that; I would probably have a terrible time on the job anyway.

Your not hiring him actually did him a favour, whether he likes it or not. He sounds like the kind of person who would have a bad time at work, no matter what accommodations you provided.

[sms001]

Could be he's just trying to fill a "looking for work" quota for some sort of assistance also, and never wanted the job.

[Teskeria]

I am physically disabled. Not a huge amount, but I can't do jobs that list physical requirements as - bending, lifting more than 10 pounds, crawling, kneeling, standing (more than 10 minutes), ect.
I can do jobs where the vast majority of time is sitting. It hurts after a couple hours, but is not a major problem.
Therefore, when a job lists the physical activities I can't do, I know I will not be able to handle that job. I don't bother applying. Because if they tell you up front what the job entails physically, and you can't handle that, applying will not get you the job, and if you tried to pull a discrimination lawsuit, it would be laughed out of court. (If they found a lawyer crooked enough to file it) They were upfront about the requirements.

[mathnerd]

I wouldn't be so sure that these types of cases get laughed out of court. I can't find a link, but back in 2001 Palm Beach County Florida got sued by a traffic light installer after he was fired for not being able to perform the essential duties of the job. The reason he was unable to do so was because he was color blind and could not distinguish between the 19 different colored wires that were involved in the installation of the lights. PBC maintained that accommodating the disability would place an undue financial hardship on the county, as hiring or reassigning another employee to label the wires that would be used by this one employee was an unjustifiable expense and an irresponsible use of taxpayer money. The county lost the lawsuit.