This story makes one wonder about the job we're doing educating those
companies which sit on our most highly regarded rehabilitation centers for
the blind. Couldn't the company be chastized for "looking for excuses?"
considering the fact that it took them two tries to actually find a
reasonable answer as to why Kelly couldn't be hired as a CSP? Not that I
consider it a valid reason, since I know of at least one screen reader
which was available at the end of 1993 for Windows 3.x.
-Brian
--- Forwarded mail from <nfb-rd@lothlorien.nfbcal.org>
Rejected message sent to nfb-rd@nfbcal.org by KELLY@RIPCO.COM
follows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the impending merger of MCI and British Telecom, I thought I would
share the following article. It raises some important questions about
what will the level of service and pparticipation be from this super
corporation to people with disabilities.
kely
This account is told by Stella O'Brien who is Editor: Ability -
Jnl of the British Computer Society Disability Group.
email:smo-brien@lioness.demon.co.uk
It'll be different when we have civil rights...won't it?
Many disabled job-seekers who are angered by their treatment in
the UK look to the USA and legislation like the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) for best practice models to be copied
elsewhere. American Kelly Pierce offers us his cautionary tale
and invites us to temper our enthusiasm for the efficacy of
legal protection.
This story is culled from the report of findings of the Office of
Federal Contract Compliance Program (OFCCP) in the US
Department Of Labour in relation to a job-discrimination suit
brought by Kelly Pierce against MCI Communications Corporation
(MCI, a large US telecoms company). The reports are public
documents and available to anyone under the US Freedom of
Information Act.
Rhetorical and political hygiene
MCI has impeccable credentials in the arena of disability,
employment, and access. As a Federal contractor, MCI has an
Affirmative Action Program for Individuals with Disabilities
which not only obliges them not to discriminate against people
with disabilities, but also to take positive steps to recruit,
hire, and promote them.
MCI serves on the advisory board of the Colorado Center for the
Blind, a National Federation of the Blind recognised training
center. MCI is a sponsor of the World Institute of Disability's
Blue Ribbon Panel for Telecommunications Policy, which explores
and develops policy needs and issues relating to people with
disabilities and their participation in telecoms and information
services. Many of the panel's ideas have been incorporated into
the telecommunications deregulation bill currently before
Congress.
The assessment
Kelly Pierce has vision impairments resulting from Leber's Optic
Neuropathy and is recognised under ADA as a person with a
disability, and therefore eligible for its relevant provisions
and protection. In January 1994 he responded to MCI's
recruitment campaign for Customer Service Professionals (CSP).
After
preliminary telephone screening he was invited to an assessment
interview and typing test in February.
Ms Stephanie Goddard carried out the interview and administered
the typing test. She evaluated Kelly Pierce across thirteen
categories; rating him average for eight, and good for five
categories, with especial credit for his ability to learn, and
flexibility regarding working patterns. The typing test gave him
a speed of 40 wpm, above MCI's stated minimum of 30 wpm. Ms
Goddard
recommended that Kelly Pierce's application should be rejected,
emphasising his lack of sales experience, and his lack of focus
in oral communication or response.
The complaint
Dissatisfied by the outcome of his application, Kelly Pierce
filed a complaint that MCI violated its obligations as a Federal
contractor (see above), and that contrary to the provisions of
the Rehabilitation Act (1973) and ADA, it had not properly
considered his
qualifications, and failed to consider/provide reasonable
accommodation.
He didn't meet our standards
MCI argued that the complainant did not meet the minimum
qualifications for the position of CSP, emphasising Ms Goddard's
evaluation of his skills and experience. However, the evidence
presented to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCCP)
indicated that MCI's recruitment specifications were:
1 college degree preferred;
2 minimum of 12 months customer service or sales experience; 3
excellent oral and written communications skills;
4 familiarity with PC computers and keyboard a must;
5 knowledge of Windows software desirable (although the
newspaper advertisements stated knowledge of computer
software).
The OFCCP contrasted Kelly Pierce's qualifications and skill set
relative to that of his fellow applicants who were subsequently
hired. The results showed that MCI had employed 24 people, five
of whom did not have a degree (unlike Kelly Pierce).
The complainant had demonstrably high levels of computer literacy
and written communication skills, having been involved in
computer research, and written published articles, in addition to
his involvement in preparing press releases and newletters
stories about computer equipment. Of the people who were
employed, two failed the minimum typing speed test, one of whom
was noted to have "limited keyboard experience"; and two more
were not given the typing test (although one had had a wpm score
recorded on her evaluation form).
The OFCCP found that five of the people who were hired had less
customer service experience than the complainant although MCI
had stressed that Kelly Pierce's lack of experience was one of
the strongest reasons for Ms Goddard's rejection of his
application. It was also discovered that another applicant had
received a similarly unfavourable rating of his oral skills by
Ms Goddard, yet was put forward for a second interview, and
ultimately successful in winning a CSP position.
Inconsistencies and vague responses
Relating to the charge that MCI had violated its commitment to
provide/consider needed accomodations for disabled people, the
interviewer, Ms Goddard, claimed that the complainant had not
requested any accommodation. However, under examination, she
verified that Kelly Pierce had discussed with her the type of
adaptive equipment he would need. The OFCCP further noted that
when it had scrutinised the evaluation form which was completed
by Ms Goddard, it had found her written entry "Needs
modification for auditory access".
OFCCP questioned Ms Goddard's understanding of MCI
established procedures on the issue of accommodation, and
concluded from her "very vague responses" and unsatisfactory
answers that she lacked any specific comprehension of MCI's
policies and procedures.
The findings
On the basis of its investigations the OFCCP concluded that there
were several inconsistencies in the treatment of the complainant
and comparable non-disabled applicants. The inconsistencies were
manifest in the initial screening, the testing results, and the
discretion exerted on behalf of non-disabled candidates regarding
the qualifications specified in the job description.
The OFCCP's official Notice of Results of Investigation (NORI) as
delivered on 1st February 1995, were that MCI had acted in
contravention to its own Affirmative Action Programme, as well as
violating Federal law. "MCI has failed to review its personnel
processes to determine whether present procedures assure careful,
thorough and systematic consideration of the job qualifications
of known Disabled applicants. In addition, MCI has violated 41
CFR 60-741.6(d) by failing to provide/consider reasonable
accommodations to the physical limitations of a disabled
applicant. MCI has not provided a legitimate nondiscriminatory
rationale (e.g. business necessity or financial cost and
expense) for its failure."
If at first you don't succeed...
The OFCCP invited "MCI to join with it to resolve this matter
through conciliation by informal means". MCI responded by
offering several flurries of additional information designed to
support its decision not to select Kelly Pierce for one of its
CSP positions. From the nature of the additional material, it is
unclear to the lay-person whether MCI is defending its decision
not to employ Kelly Pierce as an individual, or as a person with
vision disabilities.
An example of this is MCI's argument that its Customer Service
Environment was too busy, complex, and demanding for a blind
computer user to be able to function as effectively as non-
disabled colleagues. MCI had to withdraw this assertion when
blind
employees carrying out the same or similar tasks were identified
at rival telecoms companies and other businesses with intensive
customer service environments. These companies included AT&T,
Sprint, Ameritech, the Marriott group, Northwest Airlines, and
United Airlines.
The Windows defence
Most of us are familiar with the expression "It's a bad workman
who blames his tools": we may have to learn to adapt it. 21st
April 1995 MCI filed a response to the OFCCP's NORI which stated
that at the time when Kelly Pierce made his application
"adaptive equipment necessary to accomodate his disability was
not available (i.e., equipment which would allow the Complainant
to perform the computer tasks associated with the position in a
"Windows" environment). In view of this, MCI contends that the
Complainant was not a "qualified" individual with a disability".
The OFCCP further investigated the matter, and discovered that in
early 1994 there was no adequate screen review access to Windows,
so it over-turned its previous findings. In its revised decision,
OFCCP declared that there is "insufficient evidence that the
Contractor has violated its obligations under the
nondiscrimination and affirmative action provisions of Section
503 or under the nondiscrimination provisions of the ADA".
Medical model redux?
After years of legislation and advocacy promoting the social
model of disability in the US, it now seems as if the medical
model is making a comeback. Crudely, if given the picture of a
wheelchair user stuck at the bottom of a staircase, the social
model would identify the disability as the inaccessible
environment; the medical model would locate the disability in
the person's inability to climb the staircase. According to this
regressive model, the problem lies with the individual who does
not have access to the environment, rather than the parties who
commissioned the environment to be constructed in that way, or
the people responsible for its design.
Who owns the problem?
Recounting this story has become a hazardous activity. With some
listeners, it acts as a full moon to a werewolf, releasing
previously unknown depths of ferocity. Others interrupt
constantly, saying "But that can't be right". Still more bury
their heads in their hands and groan.
A point of universal agreement is that one of this case's most
infuriating aspects is the failure to identify who owns the
problem, and which actors in this story have the power and
political will to provide effective solutions.
Is the problem Kelly Pierce's, and by extension, that of all
disabled job-hunters who encounter inaccessible environments,
whether physical or computer-based? What solutions do they have
the power to contribute beyond personal and political advocacy?
Does the problem lie with goverment; the designers of
inaccessible technology and environments; third-parties who fail
to develop access to new technologies within a short time-scale;
or employers and institutions who purchase such technology and
tolerate its shortcomings? It is possible to formulate a stout
rebuttal of blame for all of these parties: "So are they all,
all honourable men".
Technology and development should emancipate disabled people,
not restrict their opportunities. Attribution of blame is not
important: collaboration to ensure effective solutions is.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 02 2012 - 01:30:04 PST