PDA

View Full Version : EEOC: High school diploma requirement might violate Americans with Disabilities Act



sailsmen
01-02-2012, 12:28 PM
EEOC: High school diploma requirement might violate Americans with Disabilities Act


By Dave Boyer

-

The Washington Times

Sunday, January 1, 2012

Employers are facing more uncertainty in the wake of a letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission warning them that requiring a high school diploma from a job applicant might violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The development also has some wondering whether the agency's advice will result in an educational backlash by creating less of an incentive for some high school students to graduate.

The "informal discussion letter" from the EEOC said an employer's requirement of a high school diploma, long a standard criterion for screening potential employees, must be "job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity." The letter was posted on the commission's website on Dec. 2.

Employers could run afoul of the ADA if their requirement of a high school diploma "'screens out' an individual who is unable to graduate because of a learning disability that meets the ADA's definition of 'disability,'" the EEOC explained.

The commission's advice, which does not carry the force of law, is raising alarms among employment-law professionals, who say it could carry far-reaching implications for businesses.

Maria Greco Danaher, a lawyer with the labor and employment law firm Ogletree Deakins, said the EEOC letter means that employers must determine whether job applicants whose learning disabilities kept them from obtaining diplomas can perform the essential job functions, with or without reasonable accommodation. She said the development is "worthy of notice" for employers.

"While an employer is not required to 'prefer' a learning-disabled applicant over other applicants with more extensive qualifications, it is clear that the EEOC is informing employers that disabled individuals cannot be excluded from consideration for employment based upon artificial barriers in the form of inflexible qualification standards," she wrote in a blog post.

Mary Theresa Metzler, a lawyer with Ballard Spahr in Philadelphia, said there may be an "unintended and unfortunate" repercussion of the EEOC's discussion: "There will be less incentive for the general public to obtain a high school diploma if many employers eliminate that requirement for job applicants in their workplace."

Officials at the EEOC said the letter in question addressed "a particular inquiry" and disputed that it would have repercussions in secondary education.

"No, we don't think the regulation would discourage people from obtaining high school diplomas," said Peggy Mastroianni, legal counsel for the EEOC. "People are aware that they need all the education they can get."

She said the letter does not offer a new interpretation of the ADA.

Jeanne Goldberg, a senior lawyer/adviser at the agency, said the issue would come up only when high school graduation standards are not related to a specific job.

"This would never arise when the high school diploma is in fact necessary to do a job," she said.

Ms. Metzler said the policy could lead the EEOC to bring claims against employers or encourage applicants who have failed to gain employment to raise the issue.

"The EEOC may be inclined to test its view on the high school diploma requirement and its impact on the disabled in a court case," said Ms. Metzler, who is advising clients to "review their job descriptions to determine if a high school degree is truly necessary, or would aid the employee in performing the essential functions of the particular job.

"While such a requirement is routinely included by many employers, a deeper analysis may demonstrate that a lesser educational requirement might suffice," she said.

Some worry that the EEOC's letter could place less emphasis on a diploma in the workplace, but the push in Congress has been in the opposite direction. House Republicans sought late last year to reform the federal unemployment-benefit system by requiring recipients of aid who do not have high school degrees to be "enrolled and making satisfactory progress in classes" toward a General Education Development certificate or equivalent.

That proposal was not part of the final deal that Congress approved to extend a payroll-tax holiday for two months, but Republicans say they intend to renew their call for the reform this year.

Some corporate counsels are advising clients to adjust the way they approach the hiring process.

"Employers are wise to evaluate whether a high school diploma really is necessary to perform the essential functions of any job for which it is being required," the Employer Law Report advised in a blog post by Lisa Whittaker, a lawyer with the Porter Wright firm, which has represented business clients for more than 150 years.

"Even in those situations where the high school diploma requirement can be justified, employers will still need to consider" whether a "reasonable accommodation" could be provided to allow a disabled person without a diploma to perform a given job.

© Copyright 2012 The Washington Times, LLC

In New Orleans the City Director of the Summer Youth Jobs Program handed every participant the City's portion of their pay on the first day and told them to go have a great Summer. When asked why she didn't line them up for employment at various businesses who participate in the program the Director said it was too hard to do that.

MrBluGruv
01-02-2012, 01:38 PM
Ridiculous. I think we've found another agency that is teetering on the edge of having outlived its usefulness and is therefore LOOKING for things to get on about just to keep itself alive.



Maria Greco Danaher, a lawyer with the labor and employment law firm Ogletree Deakins, said the EEOC letter means that employers must determine whether job applicants whose learning disabilities kept them from obtaining diplomas can perform the essential job functions, with or without reasonable accommodation. She said the development is "worthy of notice" for employers.

So basically, one hand is not talking to the other, and they both end up being lazy; instead of working with whoever it is that dictates disabilities and how they need to be accommodated in the school system to make sure accommodations are made for those with apparently obvious disabilities that yet still keep them from getting a diploma to make sure that they have a fair shot at actually earning one, they would instead be completely fine creating an environment that allows them to not have to worry about getting even a high school diploma, and on top of that FORCE employers to hire these people that don't even have an equivalency to the most basic form of standardized (yes, I'm using that term loosely) education.


"While an employer is not required to 'prefer' a learning-disabled applicant over other applicants with more extensive qualifications, it is clear that the EEOC is informing employers that disabled individuals cannot be excluded from consideration for employment based upon artificial barriers in the form of inflexible qualification standards," she wrote in a blog post.

Officials at the EEOC said the letter in question addressed "a particular inquiry" and disputed that it would have repercussions in secondary education.

"No, we don't think the regulation would discourage people from obtaining high school diplomas," said Peggy Mastroianni, legal counsel for the EEOC. "People are aware that they need all the education they can get."

Is this woman seriously a lawyer? On one hand, their camp says "education is not always important to do a job", and then from another part of THE SAME CAMP, someone says "they will need all the education they can get." Does anyone talk to ANYONE else in these useless agencies?


Jeanne Goldberg, a senior lawyer/adviser at the agency, said the issue would come up only when high school graduation standards are not related to a specific job.

"This would never arise when the high school diploma is in fact necessary to do a job," she said.

Really? I'm pretty sure that's not what the purpose of a high school education is. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's why we have "on-the-job training", and that is why it's called "on-the-job training." The entire purpose of high school is supposed to be much larger than teaching you how to do whatever job you do that apparently doesn't even need one. This line of thought proves PRECISELY that they are about devaluing the acquisition of an education.


Ms. Metzler said the policy could lead the EEOC to bring claims against employers or encourage applicants who have failed to gain employment to raise the issue.

"The EEOC may be inclined to test its view on the high school diploma requirement and its impact on the disabled in a court case," said Ms. Metzler, who is advising clients to "review their job descriptions to determine if a high school degree is truly necessary, or would aid the employee in performing the essential functions of the particular job.

"While such a requirement is routinely included by many employers, a deeper analysis may demonstrate that a lesser educational requirement might suffice," she said.

Anyone have this woman's mailing address? I'd like to send her a personal "**** you" letter for lowering the bar EVEN FURTHER in this country.


Some worry that the EEOC's letter could place less emphasis on a diploma in the workplace, but the push in Congress has been in the opposite direction. House Republicans sought late last year to reform the federal unemployment-benefit system by requiring recipients of aid who do not have high school degrees to be "enrolled and making satisfactory progress in classes" toward a General Education Development certificate or equivalent.

That proposal was not part of the final deal that Congress approved to extend a payroll-tax holiday for two months, but Republicans say they intend to renew their call for the reform this year.

Some corporate counsels are advising clients to adjust the way they approach the hiring process.

"Employers are wise to evaluate whether a high school diploma really is necessary to perform the essential functions of any job for which it is being required," the Employer Law Report advised in a blog post by Lisa Whittaker, a lawyer with the Porter Wright firm, which has represented business clients for more than 150 years.

"Even in those situations where the high school diploma requirement can be justified, employers will still need to consider" whether a "reasonable accommodation" could be provided to allow a disabled person without a diploma to perform a given job.

I think I've figured it out: this whole....thing....that they are trying to push, is a backlash from people that were pissed off that their college educations didn't automatically land them a job.

So their answer is instead of earning it, just GIVE it to me.


I'm sure there are a number of unfortunate situations and circumstances that make a diploma hard to achieve, I'm sure some people really do have it rough with learning disabilities, and I'm sure there are some youths that have to pick being a breadwinner for a family over being at school, but in the first case I know for a fact that MANY MANY accommodations are made for many students to really try to help them through it, and in the second case, well that's a problem whose scope is larger than what an education commission can tackle alone. I don't have ANY pity for anyone else who doesn't get one in this day and age in our country.

guspech750
01-02-2012, 02:09 PM
Another way to dumb down America so society is more dependent on government.

What a ***** joke!!


---
- Sent from my iPhone
Eaton Swap + 4.10's = Wreeeeeeeeeedom!!

Bluerauder
01-02-2012, 03:31 PM
This ought to be really interesting for the US Armed Forces ....

" What qualifications must I meet in order to join the military?

It's simple. In general, the Services require U. S. citizenship or permanent residency (i.e., a green card if a non-citizen), a high school diploma or equivalent, good health, and minimum scores on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). "

Minimum CAT IIIb qualifying score on the ASVAB is 31. Of course, there are also age, height, weight and criminal record qualifications to go along with the above. The services stopped taking CAT IV's (ASVAB below 31) also long ago because a score below 31 indicates serious issues in reading, comprehesion, basic writing, and simple math skills.

The services figured out long ago that a high school diploma was the single most important indicator in predicting a recruit's ability to complete their initial term of service. Trainee discharges, Chapter 5 Early Outs, and Early Separation Discharges during the first 12 months of service were found to be disproportionately weighted with Non-HSD soldiers. Those without a high school diploma were much, much, much more prone to "quit" on the military just like they did on their education.

It should be rather easy for the military to justify their high school diploma (or equivalent) requirements and if you can't cut at least a 31 on the ASVAB .... forget it. Other employers, jobs, or professions should be able to do the same thing. If an HSD is required, say so. If not, so be it.

massacre
01-02-2012, 04:25 PM
Forcing companies to hire idiots can't be good.

sailsmen
01-02-2012, 05:07 PM
Bluerauder - this increases the BURDEN on Employers raising the cost of doing business and further increases their Liability.

When I started in business 30+ years ago profits, the reward,
I typicaly saw was 10% to 30% of Gross Sales. Now what I see is 3%, not viable, to 15%.

For most People who could start a business and are entering the economy they are far better off working for the Federal Gov't as a Civilian then starting their own business. There is no risk working for the Gov't as a Civilian and a small risk working in the private sector.

Business People in the economy are in many cases better off selling or closing their business. Those that can go over seas already have.

In defense of the EEOC I have seen them dismiss many a bogus complaint. However, most complaints cost the employer $5,000 to $20,000.

There are so many laws no employer can be 100% in compliance 100% of the time, just ask Gibson Guitar, 1 centimeter is what did Gibson in http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/21/grossman-that-silly-little-centimeter-makes-it-a-c/
"The Lacey Act hangs like the sword of Damocles over the heads of American businesses. In addition to the 4,500 or so criminal offenses in federal law, plus as many as 300,000 more contained in federal regulations, businesses are expected to comply with the laws of nearly 200 foreign countries every time they purchase or take possession of any product from a foreign source — whether or not they imported it themselves."

With each law the Risk increases for most in business and the Reward decreases.

Shaijack
01-02-2012, 08:15 PM
When Haggis and I start our country there will be NONE of this crap...