Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This may not help her cause since she was not really applying for a job at her level of qualifications.
It is not against the law for companies to decide to not hire with overqualified individuals.
I am not a expert on the ADA-- but I wish you both well.
I actually agree. The company at this point could easily say it wasn't that they were dismissive, it was that they were REALLY hoping to find her something in management (which just isn't available) and already knew her qualifications, so the interview was just a formality. That would explain away all the dismissive behaviors and would go a long way to a reasonable explanation of the disability questions, as the company could claim they already knew she could work as a salesperson based on prior experience at a higher level.
The EEOC does not evaluate the reason that an employer made a particular hiring decision, other than to determine whether that particular decision was discriminatory. So, the only issue here is whether your wife was not hired due to her disability. Claiming that they had "other jobs" in mind for her is not relevant, considering she hasn't applied for other jobs. She applied for this job. Based on the facts presented by the OP, the hiring official's motives are suspicious, but I would expect her to deny that she said any of the things that were alleged - and unfortunately there are no witnesses.
If you are lucky, she will admit that her disability was a factor, but that it would have been an undue hardship to hire your wife. Then you'll have to argue that they could have accommodated her, but failed to do so.
This is not a slam dunk case by any stretch of the imagination, but it has possibilities. Consider what your wife might want. In order to be made whole. Mediation is always a possibility.
Picking up a box a few times a week cannot possibly qualify as a hardship on the company and hardships are the only free pass as far as I can tell a company can utilize.
Guess we shall find out. If nothing comes of this, the power of social media is a great tool in this day and age.
They certainly can, especially if it is part of the job description.
I agree with the info you are getting from dmills. If your wife wants to try to vindicate her rights, don't allow the naysayers on the interwebs change her mind.
One other point to keep in mind. The EEOC is only part of the process. Many valid claims are not resolved by the EEOC. It is an agency woefully short of the resources it needs for the job that has been assigned to it. Even a finding of no probable cause from the EEOC should not necessarily close the door on your efforts. Your wife definitely has enough going on to merit at least one conversation with an experienced and competent plaintiff's employment lawyer who practices in your location. If you don't know any, you can probably find one by searching the directory at the website for the National Employment Lawyers Association.. Although dmills has given you a good legal framework analysis, you can read a lot more information at the Workplace Fairness website.
Remember that, fair or not, if your wife's name gets passed around as someone who sued for discrimination or otherwise gave the company heartburn, she could be blacklisted, and you couldn't prove it (depends on the size of the area, field, etc.)
Reprisal is a actually easier to prove than a claim of discrimination - and one does not have to prevail on the original claim to be able to prevail on a subsequent reprisal claim.
Reprisal is a actually easier to prove than a claim of discrimination - and one does not have to prevail on the original claim to be able to prevail on a subsequent reprisal claim.
True. But people in an industry talk. So, his wife may get all sorts of great interviews and will just not be the best "fit" for the position because of the EEOC claim. Prove that is any sort of retaliation when it is a different, uninvolved, company and the interview went well but the person wasn't chosen. You never will, especially in this economy when people go for job interviews and don't get the job all the time.
I just read a similar case on EEOC's website, where a woman was disabled and they hired someone else who had less experience. She was awarded $85,000. I forgot the name of the company but it's on their fromt page with a list ofother awards that was given for discrimination. I'm in the process now and it took almost 9 months for them to interview my employer. I just completed my rebuttal to their defense, so it's a long process abd one that I feel is worth it. Just tell your wife to fight the case if she believes she has a legal ground to stand on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
