Pointed out the training wasn't ADA compliant at my new job. Got this text the same day (the job listing is still up)

[u/eldritchpussymaggots]

1. This was a cleaning position at a medical building, I'm leaving it intentionally vague as not to doxx myself.

2. 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.

3. 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.

[u/Delicious_Loquat437]

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.

[u/ImDonaldDunn → u/Delicious_Loquat437]

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.

[u/zzctdi → u/Delicious_Loquat437]

Oh, I'd wager you have or have had clients who are on Reddit. Redditors are everywhere!

[u/Delicious_Loquat437 → u/zzctdi]

Please no, I didn't want to know that lol

[u/zzctdi → u/Delicious_Loquat437]

Well unfortunately, its existence isn't dependeant on your knowledge thereof, lol

[u/jaimbot → u/Delicious_Loquat437]

Paralegal here, not an attorney. Do you think that maybe the reason they were so quick to fire OP and cite whatever reason they wanted to is because OP could have been “at will” and if OP was “at will” do you think they could still have a decent shot at a case or would it be very difficult?

[u/Delicious_Loquat437 → u/jaimbot]

Most states are at will employment in the US, it doesn't truly impact termination for an unlawful reason like disability discrimination or whistleblowing activity. That's still unlawful. Once a claimant alleges discrimination and gets passed the initial hurdle of establishing the elements of retaliation, the employer gets to provide a legitimate business reason for their termination decision. We rarely have arguments over whether employees were at will or not in discrimination cases. 

If they were in the probationary period, then the company likely fired someone who might become a problem and complain a bunch more later on down the line. Which. Yes, you can fire an employee for being annoying .... But not if they're a whistleblower. 

I've seen dumber cases. Especially considering OP was just recently hired. If the hiring sign is still up for the company, they'd have a hard time supporting their reason for termination. I'm really curious if HR approved the termination before it occurred 

[u/ImDonaldDunn → u/Delicious_Loquat437]

When I first saw this post, my initial thought was that some poor HR person at OPs former employer is having a terrible night after discovering this post on the front page of Reddit. If someone in HR signed off on this, they are a colossal idiot.