AAn accounting firm has just contacted your consulting business for assistance.
ID: 449654 • Letter: A
Question
AAn accounting firm has just contacted your consulting business for assistance. They want to hire someone to do accounting and payroll. The bookstore is downstairs, while the office is upstairs in an older building. The essential functions of the job include operating a computer, maintaining a ledger, providing the owner with financial statements, completing tax returns, paying bills and employees, and balancing the bank statements. The desk for this is at the top of a flight of 24 steps. There is no elevator, and the building is too old to be ADA compliant. The firm is struggling financially, but hopes to increase sales as a new coffee shop just opened next door. The most qualified applicant to their advertisement has just come into the bookstore in a wheelchair. Summarize your consulting recommendations to the accounting firm. Be sure to discuss whether this candidate is capable of performing the essential functions of this job from a wheelchair. Analyze the issue of reasonable accommodation. What does the law say? Could the employer make a reasonable accommodation here to hire the best candidate for this job? How could they do that considering their tight finances? Find a court case on ADA that has reached a verdict, how did the court case interpret the law as written? How might that outcome provide any insight or application to the discussion scenario or to reasonable accommodation, in general?
Explanation / Answer
Discrimination towards a physically challenged individual has been a very major issue in our society and it’s still. Judging from the above scenario, it is very obvious that the candidate who happens to be paraplegic (confined in the wheelchair) is the most qualified for the job. However, the accounting firm appears to be discriminating against this fellow by hiding under architectural obstacles. According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), it is very unethical to deprive an individual a job opportunity in a firm based on the fact that the candidate is confined in a wheel chair. As far as I’m concerned, what I can comprehend from this scenario is that the candidate is very competent to perform every duty required of this job while the only barrier is his physical disability even with this if reasonable accommodation is made he would still perform. Although the company is experiencing a huge financial crunch however management could still work around making easy movement into the building accessible to the candidate (Blanck & Braddock, 2008). But if management can’t make this provision available, it will be violation of the ADA act in the workplace which could also be termed negligence act towards the physically challenged person and could lead to automatic disqualification.
Legally employers are obligated to make reasonable accommodation in order to employ the best candidate. Doing so will enable the chosen candidate to be able to perform to his optimum. From the above scenario, one recommendation I will suggest is that the employer should have hired another person who is going to assist the paraplegic candidate in order to maneuver around the building. To me the cost of paying that person will be cheaper than the renovation of the building to accommodate the confined candidate considering the company’s tight finances. Also because of the company’s financial crisis, the employer could move the bookstore from downstairs to the first level and possibly his office from upstairs to the first level too. Switching and moving things around a bit to accommodate the paraplegic’s needs will not hurt. In fact, it will reduce the strenuous movement of the candidate.
A court case on ADA that I can point to is one about Molski. Molski considered himself to be a civil activist for ADA cases. He is popularly known for filing ADA lawsuits against small businesses in violation of the ADA act. Overtime, Molski filed 400 lawsuits against California small businesses due to lack of handicap parking, misplaced handrails and other ADA violations. Molski has gotten heavy critic over his lawsuits and in 2004 a Federal Judge accused Molski of extortion calling him a “hit-and-run plaintiff” and barred Molski from filing further lawsuits. Molski appealed the judge’s order to the United States Supreme Court but was denied after they refused to hear his case (Gold, 2011).
A similar example that involves Molski is the case of Molski and M.J. Cable Inc. Molski sued the restaurant for deliberately discriminating against the physically challenged by not providing accessible public services. He argued that their architectural barriers are hindering clients from accessing public services. However, during judgment the jury ruled in favor of M.J. cable. Molski’s case was denied based on his past record and the jury decided that he was not entitled to protection under Americans with Disabilities Act.
References
Blanck, P. D., & Braddock, D. L. (2008). The Americans with Disabilities Act and the emerging workforce: Employment of people with mental retardation. Washington, DC: American Assoc. on Mental Retardation.
Gold, S. D. (2011). Americans with Disabilities Act. New York: Marshall Cavendish Benchmark.