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

[PiKA2001]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...utm_medium=RSS

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.

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.”

What do you think? I agree that someone who couldn't finish high school due to a disability shouldn't have that held against them.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Is it a diploma vs. GED thing, or are they saying employers should not require either?

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Is it a diploma vs. GED thing, or are they saying employers should not require either?

Since GEDs aren't mentioned I'm assuming neither will be required.

[Senusret I]

I only skimmed the article, but my sense is that it's not diploma vs GED, but diploma vs certificates of attendance (which some jurisdictions give to special ed students who cannot or do not meet standard graduation requirements).

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Here's the problem: employers required diploma or GED because it opens them up to less legal BS than giving their own employment tests. If they could do the latter, this could make sense, but they need some way to screen for basic skills.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Here's the problem: employers required diploma or GED because it opens them up to less legal BS than giving their own employment tests. If they could do the latter, this could make sense, but they need some way to screen for basic skills.

Why couldn't an employer give a general aptitude test to applicants? Granted it'd cost some extra time and money but what legal BS would McDonald's or Walgreens face if they tested applicants on basic math or reasoning skills?


One thing that I think may cause some problems for employers is how to determine if an applicant dropped out of high school because he has ADD or another legitimate disability or if he dropped out because he thought school was lame. I'm by no means an HR guru, but I thought that medical/health information (unless it prohibits you from performing tasks related to that job) doesn't need to be disclosed.

[carnation]

If a student had a 504 plan when s/he was in school due to a disability, s/he could probably provide a copy of that.

[AlphaFrog]

This is too slippery slope for my liking.


What happens when this becomes legal standard and then someone decides that it's not fair to require a college degree for certain positions? I feel that if a company wants to require a PhD to be a janitor, it's their right to do so. Wages and free market should take care of those problems. Heck, if McD's wants to require a college degree, they should be able to...after their workforce dries up, though, they'd be forced to reconsider.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Why couldn't an employer give a general aptitude test to applicants? Granted it'd cost some extra time and money but what legal BS would McDonald's or Walgreens face if they tested applicants on basic math or reasoning skills?


One thing that I think may cause some problems for employers is how to determine if an applicant dropped out of high school because he has ADD or another legitimate disability or if he dropped out because he thought school was lame. I'm by no means an HR guru, but I thought that medical/health information (unless it prohibits you from performing tasks related to that job) doesn't need to be disclosed.

If you want to claim a disability that falls under the Americans with Disabilities act, you would have to disclose such information. Obviously, if you don't want them to know you have a health problem, and it would not affect your work or be readily noticeable, you could keep that to yourself. It's pretty hard to claim discrimination based on a disability if no one knows you have one.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Why couldn't an employer give a general aptitude test to applicants? Granted it'd cost some extra time and money but what legal BS would McDonald's or Walgreens face if they tested applicants on basic math or reasoning skills?

You have to be able to show that the test itself does not discriminate. If, say, 10 whites take the test and pass, and 10 blacks take the test and fail, McDonald's could get slapped with a lawsuit, and McD's would have to show that every question asked by the test is directly related to an on-the-job skill.

[Pingyang]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

If you want to claim a disability that falls under the Americans with Disabilities act, you would have to disclose such information. Obviously, if you don't want them to know you have a health problem, and it would not affect your work or be readily noticeable, you could keep that to yourself. It's pretty hard to claim discrimination based on a disability if no one knows you have one.

But you wouldn't necessarily disclose that disability in the hiring stages. You might wait to disclose a non-visible disability until you needed accommodations. Especially if you didn't know based on the information available at hiring that you would need any accommodations.

[amIblue?]

The article states that “This would never arise when the high school diploma is in fact necessary to do a job,” so what are some circumstances in which people who are unable to get a diploma are actually being discriminated against? I'm having a hard time coming up with a circumstance.

Earlier posters have mentioned McDonalds. One doesn't have to have a diploma to work in fast food. Otherwise, restaurant jobs wouldn't be the source of part time jobs for high school students that it is.

Seriously, who is this impacting from a not being able to be hired perspective?

[AGDee]

I hate issues like these because I can totally see both sides, especially since a lot of companies are overwhelmed with applications. It's kind of like sorority recruitment- the grade cut is the easy cut. The diploma cut is a quick and easy way to eliminate a large number of applicants. On the other hand, depending on the job, some people with learning disabilities should be able to do certain jobs in spite of not being able to graduate. Then again, I know that a lot of kids with learning disabilities graduate if they are identified as learning disabled. They don't always legitimately earn that diploma by meeting the requirements in the same way, but the resource room teachers make sure they pass (based on anecdotal evidence only- from friends who fought and fought to have their kids receive actual services, not just get passed up to the next grade from year to year). I have a hard time with issues like this.

Since I have only searched for jobs that required a college degree and pretty specialized experience for the last 20+ years, I'm not really familiar with what types of jobs require a high school diploma but don't require the skills attained from obtaining that diploma.

[ElieM]

I can think of some office/mail clerk type jobs that "require" a diploma, but don't really require them

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Pingyang

But you wouldn't necessarily disclose that disability in the hiring stages. You might wait to disclose a non-visible disability until you needed accommodations. Especially if you didn't know based on the information available at hiring that you would need any accommodations.

That's what I'm saying. If the disability is visible, it will be disclosed. If you don't have to tell someone, you wouldn't unless you absolutely have to. If after hiring you though, they would have to then provide reasonable accommodations or face discrimination charges. BUT, if you are claiming that they didn't HIRE you because of a disability, they would have to know you were disabled for this to be a valid statement.