r/mildlyinfuriating • u/eldritchpussymaggots • Jul 15 '26
I just wanted a hot dog Pointed out the training wasn't ADA compliant at my new job. Got this text the same day (the job listing is still up)
This was a cleaning position at a medical building, I'm leaving it intentionally vague as not to doxx myself.
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.
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.
6.4k
u/Niceotropic Jul 15 '26
classic retaliation, i'm sorry
→ More replies (9)900
u/semajolis267 Jul 15 '26
Literally.
→ More replies (1)837
u/HistoricalSea5600 Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26
Isn’t this illegal
1.3k
u/Angry-Dragon-1331 Jul 15 '26
Very. Disabilities are a protected class and this is clearly retaliatory for pointing out their failure to comply with ADA regulations.
245
u/WackyHumanSlop Jul 16 '26
It’s only illegal if they can prove the reason for the termination was not based on discriminatory grounds
→ More replies (2)76
u/nonowords Jul 16 '26
It's illegal if they can give evidence (which testimony is) of it being discriminatory that outweighs evidence that it was done for legal reasons alone.
→ More replies (50)85
→ More replies (35)55
u/NouZkion Jul 16 '26
Yeah, but you have to disclose your disabilities and make a formal request for accomadations otherwise your employer is under no obligation to do so.
→ More replies (6)58
u/ImDonaldDunn Jul 16 '26
They cannot terminate someone for requesting an accommodation. Additionally, accommodations do not need to be requested in a formal manner.
“According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), when an individual decides to request an accommodation, the individual or their representative must let the employer know that they need an adjustment or change at work for a reason related to a medical condition. There is no need to mention the ADA or use the phrase “reasonable accommodation.” Requests for reasonable accommodation do not have to be in writing and can be requested in a face-to-face conversation or using any other method of communication. Employers may choose to write a memo or letter confirming the employee’s request or may ask the employee to fill out a form or submit the request in written form. However, the employee may want to put the request in writing even if the employer does not require it. Sometimes it is useful to have a paper trail in case there is a dispute about whether or when the accommodation was requested.” https://adata.org/faq/what-process-request-reasonable-accommodation
→ More replies (5)28
u/ObtuseMongooseAbuse Jul 16 '26
Highly illegal but you need to be able to prove it.
→ More replies (2)241
u/Transarchangelist Jul 15 '26
Retaliation is illegal, but it may be difficult to prove retaliation in this case. I was ghosted by after an interview I went into after being heavily recommended by a friend of the owner because I said I was trans. I know that’s what it was because of the woman’s reaction, but it’s not like I could actually prove that.
53
u/KawaiiRobotGirl Robot :3 Jul 16 '26
Same. I used to be a clerk at a law firm. Someone said something about hormones, and i put my two-cents in, saying Im transgender. Not long after, i was fired. They claimed my performance was bad, but i had just had my review a couple week prior and they said I was doing amazing. Literally nothin i could do to prove they fired me for being trans.
11
u/liliath23 Jul 16 '26
My cousin was "laid off" from a job where she had been the only team member to remain after the company had changed ownership and had even been the one to train everyone on their jobs - including her new manager. She'd also had excellent performance reviews. But they said they needed to cut the workforce - then kept hiring.
The issue was, she'd taken time off for a surgical procedure and was having a hard time recovering, so her doctor had insisted she take an extra month off; at the same time, she had gotten COVID for the first time and developed severe POTS afterwards, making it hard for her to work because screens triggered her symptoms.
So her being let go was very clearly due to her condition, despite them never saying so.
She was able to find an employment lawyer who took her case pro bono, and who fought not just to get her a lump sum of severence money, but to also help her get assessed to be on Disability Benefits (we're in Canada) - because that meant the company's health insurance benefits they had immediately terminated had to be reinstated and she got backpay from the insurance company for the duration when they refused to cover her too. And because of the policy, I think they had to keep covering her too (yes, we have universal insurance here, but it doesn't cover EVERYTHING - like, loss of pay while you're sick, etc).
Anyway, her situation, although it was more illness and injury-based, was similar to yours in how the discrimination played out, so you might be able to find a pro bono employment lawyer to help you...
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)29
u/Pinky1010 Jul 16 '26
Absolutely something you can do. You have your testimony and witnesses. Is it less likely to be a winning case? Yeah, but that doesn't mean 100% hopeless either. I would be surprised if very many discrimination cases were so clear cut to have "we're firing you because you're transgender" in writing.
At the very least a lawyer could convince them you have more than you do and you could get a fat settlement
14
u/ImDonaldDunn Jul 16 '26
For real. Unless the employer had a documented paper trail between the performance evaluation and the termination warning the employee of performance issues, it’s going to be difficult for them to prove the firing was not discriminatory.
→ More replies (1)17
u/RandomG0rl623 Jul 16 '26
You greatly overestimate how willing people are to believe the word of a trans person against a company even if you have evidence.
Not to mention most people (trans folks specifically) don't have the resources for a protracted legal battle about this. And that doesn't just mean money, it still takes an immense amount of time and a huge toll on your mental health even if you find someone willing to take the case pro bono or for a cut of the potential winnings. And interacting with the legal system as a trans person is a stressful concept in and of itself, we tend to want to be as invisible as possible for obvious reasons.
It's often easier to cut your losses and try to put it behind you. Which is awful and evil but it's a fact of life for us given the state of the world.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (29)77
u/mjzimmer88 GREEN Jul 15 '26
Companies don't go to court for that stuff, they quietly settle it with NDAs attached
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (51)8
1.4k
Jul 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
248
u/Dapper_Ice_2120 Jul 16 '26
Unfortunately, you're probably right
→ More replies (1)195
u/trobsmonkey Jul 16 '26
Sure isn't. Local labor boards and lawyers love this shit. It's illegal!
The effort is worth it. I've been paid a decent chunk twice for illegal shit my former jobs did.
→ More replies (13)95
u/TheOneMary Jul 16 '26
Same, some 15 years ago. Fired for pointing out the drivers I was supposed to schedule are on the road way longer than legally allowed (masked by telling them to use a different account for the recorder when they did those extra hours - one of the bosses)
Got fired immediately, went to court representing myself (allowed for employment matters where I live). Judge already asked the employers lawyer, with a sigh, if their client could never fire someone the proper way lol - and the judge also nudged me to say the right things. Got out with a quite sweet pay for working there 2 weeks....
34
u/zzctdi Jul 16 '26
You know it's bad when the judge is sick of their crap... And worse when they're still up to it.
→ More replies (10)6
u/idrunkenlysignedup Jul 16 '26
My current (hybrid) job didn't have hand rails in the stair well and I hurt my knee a week in. They let me WFH for ~2 months until they installed them and I was off crutches.
I'm one of the few (according to Reddit) that actually likes hybrid - I get to actually see humans IRL but not every day.
12.9k
u/Enter_Chandman Jul 15 '26
Welp, that unemployment case may be wicked easy for you.
2.9k
u/PlasticFrosty5340 Jul 15 '26
I mean yeah, when you get fired you can collect.
1.4k
u/Beneficial-Guess2140 Jul 15 '26
You aren’t likely eligible having worked a single shift.
209
Jul 15 '26
[deleted]
→ More replies (9)29
u/Annual_Berry8043 Jul 16 '26
There is basically no way to prove this was an ADA issue. A lawsuit would be a waste of money.
13
→ More replies (14)3
u/TheeAntelope Jul 16 '26
It isn’t a lawsuit, it’s an EEOC complaint. Everyone in this thread knows nothing about wrongful termination/ADA claims.
759
u/NimbleHoof Jul 15 '26
Not technically true depending on their other jobs. (My wife works for the unemployment office)
192
u/PlasticFrosty5340 Jul 15 '26
I don’t think it even matters about his previous job.
If he worked a shift and wasn’t fired for something gross.
→ More replies (3)313
u/Different_Pack_3686 Jul 15 '26
It does matter. Unemployment is based on hours worked and wages earned over the previous several quarters, I forget how many exactly. If they weren't working over the last several quarters, whether they're eligible to file a claim or not is irrelevant as they won't qualify for benefits.
→ More replies (18)166
u/The_Troyminator Jul 15 '26
That’s true, but it’s based on everywhere you worked. If they quit a job to take this one, the earnings from their previous job still count.
68
u/412dadD Jul 15 '26
Correction, even if you got fired from your last job, all that matters is the wages made in the last five quarters in Pennsylvania.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (4)108
u/ColdBru5 Jul 15 '26
It wouldn't be an unemployment case, it would be a wrongful termination case.
→ More replies (10)84
u/grasshopper113 Jul 15 '26
It would be both. Apply for unemployment now to get financial support, then sue for wrongful termination.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)44
u/Beneficial-Guess2140 Jul 15 '26
She doesn’t work for the unemployment office for every state…
In many states you’re not eligible until you’ve been employed for long enough or earned enough at that job.
15
u/CaptainLollygag Jul 16 '26
Yup. Most of these laws that Redditors like to throw out there are state laws, not federal, so one needs to look into how it works in their own state.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (2)17
u/Aggressive_Dot5426 Jul 15 '26
I was laid off after about 4or 5 weeks. Was denied . I’m in NH
→ More replies (9)127
u/iceman5920 Jul 15 '26
I think any lawyer worth their salt could point out a great case of discrimination.
57
u/The_Troyminator Jul 15 '26
It would be hard to prove they pointed out ADA deficiencies before getting fired.
27
u/iceman5920 Jul 15 '26
I agree, and that's the most unfortunate part. It's hard to prove after the fact if you aren't ready to record and document at the time.
→ More replies (1)14
u/banagram2000 Jul 16 '26
A lawyer can request a legal hold on the computer with the extensions installed. But acting quickly is very important.
→ More replies (9)15
u/Economy-Camp-7339 Jul 15 '26
Or retaliation or broke whistleblower protection laws, though if not notifying authorities the lattermost may be not applicable.
→ More replies (6)9
→ More replies (21)16
u/PlasticFrosty5340 Jul 15 '26
Probably depends on the state but I believe you are wrong.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (8)21
u/loztriforce Jul 15 '26
Here in Washington State you need to have lost your job through no fault of your own to be eligible for benefits.
37
→ More replies (4)12
u/capincus Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
That's not true at all, only misconduct makes a person who would otherwise be eligible inelligible for unemployment in Washington states. Which OP definitely wasn't according to their firing email. But OP would need more work in the recent past to be unemployment eligible.
→ More replies (3)438
u/eldritchpussymaggots Jul 15 '26
I've been poking around and getting mixed responses to this. I don't have the money to pay for a lawyer, but if I knew I had a case I might bother my dad about legal fees.
737
u/GloomyLingonberry509 Jul 15 '26
Most lawyers in cases like this work off of a set contingency. You win - they take a cut. Usually something like 35%.
If they don’t think they can win they won’t take it. You should at least call an office and speak to a paralegal.
251
u/Same_Mood_8543 Jul 15 '26
ADA cases have built in attorney's fees for a prevailing plaintiff. There's a reason why drive by ADA cases are such a nuisance and are usually settled, irrespective of the merits.
→ More replies (55)33
u/neuby Jul 16 '26
You can work hard to provide accessible content for disabled users and still have to settle every ADA case cause it's cheaper than going to court win or lose. Ticks me off so much.
→ More replies (4)39
u/ummaycoc Jul 16 '26
Like someone else said the fees are built in. Also you might not need it in writing, if they don’t have the accommodations then they don’t have them. If the lawyer contacts them and they have them then they will ask for an auditable trail of the system being put in place. When they can’t produce that you’re gonna have a case I imagine.
But go talk to a lawyer.
17
u/SpiderManEgo Jul 16 '26
Honestly this is correct. As part of the case, most courts would just demand an audit of the company. Regardless of OP pointing out that the training wasn't ADA compliant, the training records revealed would show that OP wasn't able to complete the training and was fired shortly after and then the fact that the training lacked the necessary things, it would still fall into a case of discrimination against the disabled.
Congrats OP, happy early retirement.
19
u/ummaycoc Jul 16 '26
Probably not retirement money but maybe cover rent for a while or even a deposit and fees for a house money.
180
79
u/Ok_Builder_4225 Jul 15 '26
Couldn't hurt to call up a lawyer and ask directly if you haven't already.
19
u/Dear-Concentrate-988 Jul 15 '26
Look into any law schools with legal clinics. Also reach out to some midsize to larger firms, they tend to have pro bono hours allowed monthly. Finally, look into legal aid clinics. These are individual non profits that offer support for these kinds of issues and a large swath of other legal issues.
Hope this helps!
19
u/PuppyPower89 Jul 15 '26
Contact the EEOC, failure to offer possible accommodations should be a viable lawsuit. It’s a government organization so they would handle the legal portion.
9
u/Mikey3800 Jul 15 '26
It looks like OP offered a solution and the company allowed it. That wouldn’t make them compliant?
→ More replies (1)22
u/Stillburgh Jul 15 '26
I believe the lawsuit would be suing over retaliation. I can’t imagine seeing this as anything other than that, the timing is way too coincidental
→ More replies (1)18
u/WinstonChurshill Jul 15 '26
So far, I’ve had friends involved in two wrongful termination for workplace harassment cases… Neither one of them had to pay a penny out-of-pocket, and actually got the case settled for free once they brought in their lawyers… If you have a case, believe me, a lawyer will take it
→ More replies (1)9
u/WhineyLobster Jul 15 '26
if you had a viable case, an attorney will do a percentage of the settlement
19
u/SnooPredictions3028 Jul 15 '26
Pro bono?
→ More replies (3)42
4
u/rumster Jul 16 '26
I'm an a11y auditor. Ping me your state and I will provide you the probono law office to contact. You might have a case. Majority of states have laws against this specifically. They should have said we'll adapt to you. This way out isn't a way out for them.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (68)13
u/Substantial_Milk8274 Jul 15 '26
This might be considered for a retaliation suit. Just like they can’t legally fire you for reporting OSHA violations. I’d ask around to those types of lawyers and see if it’s up their alley.
63
u/BouncingSphinx Jul 15 '26
I don't think a single day of training would go far for unemployment...
→ More replies (5)127
u/eldritchpussymaggots Jul 15 '26
I was thinking more of a wrongful firing case
→ More replies (22)86
u/LetReasonRing Jul 15 '26
I think it's 100% worth pursuing one here. Both because your rights were violated and because I feel like this is one where holding them accountable would very likely prevent it from happening to future employees.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (42)4
170
Jul 16 '26
[deleted]
70
u/mojojo567 Jul 16 '26
Ive worked in disability services at a college and you are absolutely correct.
The amount of times I’d have to answer angry calls from parents (yes the students are all 18-23) yelling at me bc their kid failed an exam bc their accommodations weren’t provided. They would tell us same day or AFTER the test. And a good 80% of the time the accommodation they ask for is not “reasonable”
38
u/eldritchpussymaggots Jul 16 '26
The text was not highlightable no. These were something like a PDF document running locally in their SCORM training software. I got the browser extension to work by displaying this window as a browser tab.
I was able to use my 3rd party accessibility programs but was fired anyway, seemingly just for asking.
29
→ More replies (1)11
→ More replies (5)12
u/IcyConsideration7062 Jul 16 '26
Everyone jumping on the "sue them" bandwagon doesn't seem to understand any of this. OP didn't disclose any disability beforehand, and wanted accommodation on the spot for something that may not actually be an ADA required accommodation. I think that some young people out there now getting these kinds of accommodations in school and college may think that employers will provide the same may be surprised that it won't happen, or employers will find that the person is not longer a good fit for the organization.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Phoenix_Lamburg Jul 16 '26
Agreed, but unless OP was a huge dick about this (doesn't seem like he did anything untoward except scaring them with the phrase "ADA Compliant"), it is an extraordinarly shitty thing to fire someone for a made up reason when it seems pretty obvious that they just didn't want to have to deal with someone who had a disability.
→ More replies (1)
1.9k
u/CCHTweaked Jul 16 '26
You don’t need to sue, file an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint and they will sue for you!
For free!
They live for this shit!
503
u/noplace1ikegone Jul 16 '26
I am a defense side employment lawyer. They rarely sue and if your charge is poorly written it can ruin your case. Right now lawsuits require approval by the actual commissioners, which is near impossible. Do not make a decision on this one person’s anecdotal experience. Talk to a lawyer.
→ More replies (9)163
u/TheRowdyMeatballPt2 Jul 16 '26
Fellow defense side employment attorney and this is 100% accurate. OP, consult an attorney specializing in discrimination and do not navigate this alone.
→ More replies (1)354
u/showhorrorshow Jul 16 '26
EEOC, established by the 1964 Civil Roghts Act, is barely functioning under this admin, as are most federal worker protections.
21
u/PoodlePopXX Jul 16 '26
They still have state level agencies which is usually who investigates anyway.
8
u/Working_Patience_261 Jul 16 '26
They were barely functioning before this administration. They only want breaking headlines type cases.
→ More replies (1)115
→ More replies (13)54
u/IndescribableRuckus Jul 16 '26
All you have to do is wait 6 months for an appointment!
→ More replies (1)41
Jul 16 '26
[deleted]
→ More replies (9)4
u/TheVintageJane Jul 16 '26
Oh sweet summer child. I first reported my employer in December 2023. The case is still ongoing.
→ More replies (1)
1.0k
u/Pleasant_Pool8842 Jul 15 '26
Retaliation, I would say get a lawyer but it is a lot
→ More replies (12)466
u/adamdoesmusic Jul 15 '26
Labor cases are often contingency - lawyer takes almost half if they win, and they only take cases they think they can win!
242
u/iamtheduckie PURPLE Jul 15 '26
But if you lose, they don't charge you anything. They do that because if you're hiring a labor lawyer you most likely just lost your main source of income.
→ More replies (2)49
Jul 16 '26
[deleted]
49
u/Timmichanga1 Jul 16 '26
I am a lawyer that works on a contingency fee. I do not only take cases I think I can win. I take cases I think are legitimate.
→ More replies (8)16
u/versaceblues Jul 16 '26
What is an example of a legitimate case that you also believe you could not win?
→ More replies (11)11
u/Acies Jul 16 '26
The vast majority of cases end in settlements. The odds of winning determine the value of the case. But even a case that is very unlikely to win is worth some money in a settlement.
→ More replies (1)7
u/fmb101010 Jul 16 '26
You say that like it’s a bad thing. “This person with a ton of experience in this specific area of law doesn’t think this case will win, what a piece of shit.”
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)28
u/Pleasant_Pool8842 Jul 15 '26
Lawsuits are draining and stressful even outside of the financial costs
46
u/die_hubsche Jul 15 '26
Idk I just wrapped up one today (my first and only) and got a settlement - all I had to do was share a few items and wait for a long time, answer a few questions here and there. They’re stressful when there’s a lack of clarity or things could be argued.
10
u/red--dead Jul 15 '26
These seldom go to trial. It’s really not going to be that time consuming unless it does.
→ More replies (2)5
129
u/Patriot_Repatriating Jul 16 '26
I am a lawyer, but I am not YOUR lawyer. It won't hurt you to file a complaint with the EEOC, as well as whatever version of EEOC your state has. It might work, it might not, but there's no harm in trying. And, the EEOC website is ADA compliant (and designed for normal non-lawyers to navigate).
41
u/majorgeneralporter Jul 16 '26
Also a lawyer, also not OP's lawyer, but will go further and tell them to talk to employment attorneys as well because at least in my state this would likely rise to a Rebuttal Presumption of unlawful retaliation.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)18
u/Delicious_Loquat437 Jul 16 '26
Also a lawyer. No one on reddit's lawyer. I'm more concerned about the underlying protected activity. You can request accommodations, but OP seems to imply that accommodations for dyslexic people should already be baked into the training, which I've never heard of. Not to say they didn't engage in protected activity in that, by erroneously applying the law they've kinda put the employer on notice of their disability. But from a defense side, it's not the slam dunk everyone here thinks it is.
→ More replies (6)8
u/ImDonaldDunn Jul 16 '26
OP was likely confused because accommodations for dyslexia are generally required in the education context. If they have received these accommodations their whole life, they may reasonably assume that employers must also bake accessibility into their training. That is not actually what is required under Title I, but employers are required to provide the trainings in a format accessible to the employee upon request unless doing so would cause an undue hardship.
370
u/SiriHowDoIAdult Jul 15 '26
Isn't this wrongful dismissal? If they were audited, they would fail for not being compliant, and it sounds like you could have saved them a big hassle ahead of time
98
u/cdazzo1 Jul 15 '26
Try proving that on day 1 in an at will state.
53
u/cluberti Jul 16 '26
I'm going to assume OP's statements are true, for what it's worth, so as to put this out there. I have no idea if what they've said is truth or made up, but for this response it doesn't matter.
"At will" employment doesn't mean an employer can retaliate against an employee after they make a request for reasonable accommodation for a recognized disability under the ADA. In fact, doing so would be disability discrimination, which is why they said they were reducing headcount (that they just added), which can be easy to figure out over time by investigating if anyone else was laid off as part of that reduction in force, or just OP, assuming such a suit even makes it to trial.
"At will" means for any legal reason (including no reason), but if that reason includes retaliation for an employee being disabled and requesting accommodation and thus part of a "protected class", that's not something that's meets the definition under current US law (as that's what the protection of that class is for).
→ More replies (22)→ More replies (12)24
→ More replies (14)138
u/TREE_sequence Jul 15 '26
It is, but in America it’s legal to fire someone for no reason at all, meaning proving wrongful termination is more effort than the money you actually get from it makes it worth meaning companies tend to get away with it. It’s dystopian as hell, like basically everything about the American workplace
69
u/twelfthfantasy Jul 15 '26
This is pretty open and shut retaliatory firing if they got the relevant conversations in writing.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (16)41
u/semajolis267 Jul 15 '26
Depends. This boarders on retaliation/discrimination. Was fired for pointing out that ine if thier systems wasnt in compliance with a law.
→ More replies (30)
46
u/dschull Jul 15 '26
Not trying to be rude here, but I don’t believe TTS is an ADA requirement; reasonable accommodations are the requirement. For example, providing extra time to accommodate the reading time required etc.
→ More replies (10)12
u/Brave_Quality_4135 Jul 16 '26
It’s not under the ADA but it is for medical facilities under 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Unfortunately they have until next year to get compliant because they pushed the deadline back.
22
u/Weightmonster Jul 15 '26
ADA and related legislation only requires TTS compatible PUBLIC websites or if an employee formally requests it due to a disability. (and other conditions are met).
First, was the position covered by ADA? At least 15 people? Employee not contractor? Is your dyslexia considered a disability according to ADA?
→ More replies (1)8
u/SadApartment3023 Jul 16 '26
I fear many people believe the same accomodations they receive in school will transfer to their future employers. That is not the case.
90
u/cymonium Jul 15 '26
I got terminated by a chiropractor cause I pointed out he’s committing insurance fraud and I won’t help. He had just spent money sending me to school for a year…where I was taught about insurance fraud… afaik, he’s still practicing. Guess he found a stooge to let him do it.
36
u/dabking24 Jul 16 '26
Too bad you weren’t a ghost telling him instead, chiropractors would be nothing without them.
13
7
Jul 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
13
u/dabking24 Jul 16 '26
The guy who created chiropractic care said he was told by a ghost how to do it lol
→ More replies (1)10
u/allgear_noidea Jul 16 '26
I have worked in 2 chiropractic clinics and both had rather "loose" billing practices.
One I left because of exactly how they were trying to bill me out. (illegally)
→ More replies (2)6
u/evenstar40 Jul 16 '26
Fuck chiropractors. I had one randomly bill me for services a year after I saw them. For an appointment that never happened. Pretty sure they were trying to game my insurance.
76
u/JCGJ Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
This happened to me I when worked at a water park as a custodian for like 3 days. I got reported to HR for "insubordination" for refusing to mix bleach into the pre-mixed, acid-based floor cleaning solution because it "makes the floors smell cleaner." In the HR meeting, I pulled up the SDS (Safety Data Sheets) of both the bleach we used, and the floor cleaner, in order to prove that what I was being asked to do was unsafe. I was then told to "stop being argumentative." I then reported to work the following day and was told to return my uniform and employee ID. GOTTA LOVE WORKING IN A "RIGHT TO WORK" STATE 🙄 (edit: not right to work, thanks for telling me everybody. It's at will employment. Still sucks lol).
I went ahead and reported them to OSHA. No idea what came of it after that 🤷🏻
24
u/supershott Jul 16 '26
Why is it always pools and waterparks? I worked at a pool in a small town, and the idiot teenager managers mixed bleach and ammonia and gassed the main office. When I worked at a nice indoor pool on the coast, the idiot 50 year-old manager forgot to shut off the chlorine while the place was closed for a couple weeks, then thought to herself "oh shit I was supposed to open the pipes" after people are already swimming, and it blasted two weeks worth of chlorine liquid and fumes into the pool room, everyone was choking up and running outside. (Then she covered it up and fired me for insubordination later)
5
u/JCGJ Jul 16 '26
Jesus Christ yeah idk what it is about pools and water parks, but you're absolutely right
→ More replies (4)7
u/canadiadan Jul 16 '26
What is your definition of "right to work"? The legal definition is that you can not be forced to join a union.
15
u/Specialist_Space_714 Jul 16 '26
They didn't fire you for the disability in writing, unfortunately there is a laundry list of reasons to fire someone, especially that early on in the process. The likelihood of winning a case like this is slim, what state you are in plays a large role though.
Also, while unlikely, they could have also fired you for a number of reasons besides that. It could have boiled down to something as simple as a culture fit.
Also, not having things readily available for specific disabilities does not equal a company not being ADA compliant. If an accommodation is requested and is within reasonable per legal guidelines and then they do not provide it, then you can run into compliance issues. In the future I would suggest not wording it as calling the company out for not being compliant when it is not the case until they deny the right for accommodations which they did allow in this case.
They simply could have termed you because they didn't like your mindset on that, which can be boiled down to a culture fit. Accusing a company of being non ADA complaint vs asking for accommodations per ADA guidelines are two very very different things. When words like that are used, companies may look at you as someone looking to sure them at any chance.
I have worked in HR and employment law, I have seen both sides of this. I would not have termed an employee for asking this, I would have possibly educated the employee on the difference in a friendly way, found out exactly what accommodations were needed, and gathered them in a timely manner.
Unfortunately without the conversation in writing, it is the companies lawyers against your word. It is an unlikely win.
If you are in a state like California though it is very different. Each state has different levels of employee protection.
→ More replies (3)
181
u/jsayde01 Jul 15 '26
Congratulations on presenting yourself as a future problem to your employer!
Seriously though...dodged a bullet.
32
u/SkyYellow_SunBlue Jul 15 '26
They need a different set of skills for the role - like someone who can quickly and easily read and respond to safety warnings around all those dangerous cleaning chemicals.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (56)42
u/Ok-Programmer-2199 Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26
No kidding, most states and Canada have an inherent probationary period for new jobs. Based on the fact this person is in training, I'd highly doubt that they have any case, like the other comments are suggesting (with very little information). It's possible, but unless their training is months long, and they're within 90 days of being hired, I'd be extremely surprised if a single lawyer would even hear them out. Unless the employer outright said they were firing them for being part of a protected class.
Just food for thought, if you're within 90 days, you can be fired for your haircut. Telling an employer that their training isn't compliant would get you cut from almost any on-boarding process. Not saying it's fair, it's just the way it is.
→ More replies (10)
14
u/Hot-Union-2440 Jul 16 '26
So you were going to get a loaner computer after training? For a cleaner position? Sus
51
u/Early-Light-864 Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26
How sure are you that it was non-compliant?
People are wrong more than they're right on these things
→ More replies (27)29
u/MaximumSeats Jul 16 '26
As someone who handles these, yeah people are completely delusional sometimes. But then again so are employers.
I give it 50/50 chance OP is actually portraying the situation honestly, or any of this is even real.
9
u/Mistrblank Jul 16 '26
And as a cybersecurity analyst I want to smack whoever let you install a third party program to business hardware. That's the person that should be fired.
42
u/pangolinparty999 Jul 15 '26
Your local labor group may be able to help you out until you get a lawyer
15
u/BennyVsTheWorld Jul 16 '26
I would text back, “can you confirm if this is related to my request earlier that day for reading accommodations?” Get them to respond and go to EEOC.
→ More replies (4)
6
u/Ambitious-Fox-50 Jul 16 '26
Side rant, but when did it become socially acceptable to let someone go over text message? I feel like this is the third example I’ve seen on Reddit this week.
6
7
u/FuggaDucker Jul 16 '26
I am not going to be popular here, but I will be honest.
This is what happens when you show up to a job and on the first day, during training, complain about regulation compliance.
Employers have very clever, mostly bulletproof ways of getting rid of people that complain and few have the resources to fight it even if they could win.
It isn't right, but it will likely happen again if you do it again.
I have been around a long time and I really do mean the best in telling you this.
You can learn from it or don't.
13
13
u/davidbowieisapedo Jul 16 '26
- Don’t bring up ideas to fix things on your first day.
If they’re not ADA compliant, who knows what else they’re skipping out on. Trust you do not want to work for them.
Collect unemployment and enjoy.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/WiltedEnthusiasm Jul 16 '26
I cannot tell you the number of ways this is illegal in Australia and I imagine many other countries besides. Imagine thinking firing people via sms is ok. What a disaster the US has become.
→ More replies (3)
16
20
10
u/mr_j_boogie Jul 15 '26
They eliminated the position, but they've also decided you don't have the skills needed for the position... That they eliminated...
→ More replies (2)
5
4
u/Ok-Pizza-6094 Jul 16 '26
Definitely just reply with that "Okay thumbs up" suggestion at the bottom
11
u/HamasKilledShaniLouk Jul 15 '26
What lesson did you learn from this?
14
11
50
u/redhandsblackfuture Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
So many people here unaware about employment laws. You can be fired in most states/provinces for any reason or no reason at all (besides discrimination reasons like gender/religion/culture etc) and the reasons given in the email are completely legal. They aren't obligated to employ you. They definitely suck major ass, but there is no lawsuit here.
Edit: I understand OP asked for accommodation, the employer let them use a browser extension, therefore accommodated them. They fired them in the email for 'reducing headcount' or whatever, they could have fired them for 'not fitting well with the company', they could also have fired them for 'i just dont like you working here'. Termination without Cause. Most places aren't 'right to work' and you/your lawyer will NEVER prove that the termination was because of the accommodation that OP requested. It simply doesn't work like that, I've been through this process.
31
u/Basic-Collection5416 Jul 15 '26
Dude, do you really expect them to put in writing that the reason for the firing is the ADA accommodation request? Judges aren’t stupid.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (30)14
u/kyperion Jul 16 '26
Reddit is classic to immediately jump to the conclusion that you need to sue the other party.
But then you actually reach out to attorneys and 99% of them ghost you while 1% will tell you that you’re wasting your time and money. You use an insurance legal advisor and they’ll tell you straight up that it’s not worth pursuing.
16
15
18
u/brb1650 Jul 15 '26
Gotta love Reddit’s legal hivemind. It has no basis in reality, but it sure is confident.
12
u/Silvio_DantesInferno Jul 15 '26
Sounds like the employer dodged a bullet honestly.
→ More replies (1)
28
u/ekkidee Jul 15 '26
I would immediately refer this to an attorney for possible wrongful termination and whistleblower retaliation.
→ More replies (2)
29
u/Ohfuscia Jul 15 '26
If you go to a lawyer, go for ADA compliance because the entity that pays for the lawyer's time is the one who is out of compliance, not you
→ More replies (6)
2
4
4
4
u/Novel-Surround3256 Jul 16 '26
You can still sue if they retaliated for you pointing out that they were not complying with federal guidelines. You may need some testimony to back it up, but you surely have more than nothing. Source - my mother has been a human resources executive/administrator for over a decade.
3
3
u/i_has_questionz123 Jul 16 '26
Bullet dodged, I say. But totally get the frustration. People say we have rights but there's nothing stopping retaliation in real time. Hang in there
4
u/Tricky-Yellow-2895 Jul 16 '26
gotta be ADA compliant. I think they can get sued for not being compliant
9
u/Dwro1234 Jul 16 '26
The nridge is already burned down, might as well respond with: "immediately after i point out an ADA violation? Bold move on your part."
16
11
u/Hizam5 Jul 15 '26
Also, they just don’t need the building to be cleaned anymore? Prob the worst wording they could use
10
u/misterpequeno Jul 16 '26
You accused them of breaking ADA laws on the first day. They’re not gonna want to deal with all that.
23
u/Free_Strawberry9542 Jul 15 '26
Yeah, you complained about a non issue, on ya first day. You done here.
No company wants pointless problems. If there is a problem and you bring it up like a tattle tale in first grade, you won’t be around much.
Take the lesson, adjust yourself, and go get the next job.
→ More replies (2)
53
45
u/WhineyLobster Jul 15 '26
lol no offense but you are wildly high maintenance. I bet this happens alot....
→ More replies (21)
22
u/51differentcobras Jul 15 '26
While you may have been right, I assume criticizing the job and the training on the first day may not have been the approach that most would recommend….
You basically gave them a window into the future of hiring you. You sound like a really excessively thorough auditor…. “SORRY, but that’s not ADA Compliant….*adjusts glasses*, I’m going to have to report that…..”
→ More replies (1)
20
9.2k
u/Diamondcreepah Jul 15 '26
Re-apply to the same listing and see their reaction