Are US companies legally required to provide accessible training?
Yes!
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) makes sure discrimination doesn’t occur in the workplace, and they bring about lawsuits when they believe companies have violated anti-discrimination laws. If a company does not provide reasonable accommodation in their workplace learning, they are running afoul of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) .
Lessons learned: Don’t…
Require workers to pay for their own training accommodation. A small home-healthcare provider would only pay up to $200 for an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter for one worker’s new-employee orientation, and asked the worker to pay any remaining balance for that accommodation. (EEOC v. Creative Networks)
Refuse accommodation and then demote the worker when they do not do well in training. One store in a chain of discount stores did not provide help reading a test that followed computer-based training. He had requested this help because he has dyslexia, and when he failed the test he was demoted to a lesser-paying position. (EEOC v. Dolgencorp, dba Dollar General Store)
Fire a worker rather than providing accommodation during training. A food service worker at a hospital system requested additional training time and a temporary job coach because he has a medical condition that causes memory and concentration problems. He was fired instead of provided with the requested accommodation. (EEOC v. Kaiser Permanente)
Fire a worker rather than providing accommodation during training (again!). A pizza parlor within a franchise hired a worker with Down syndrome, and also hired a job coach to help him. When an operating partner visited the location, they were ordered to fire the worker with Down syndrome. (EEOC v. PJ Utah LLC, PJ Cheese, Inc., PJ United, Inc.)
Provide an accommodation that does not meet the worker’s needs. A shipping company did not provide an accounting clerk with an ASL interpreter for training and other meetings. They provided written notes and summaries, but the worker could not easily read English. (EEOC v. UPS)
Provide an accommodation that does not meet the worker’s needs (again!). A restaurant did not provide closed captioning and/or an ASL interpreter for a part-time dishwasher, instead using written notes passed back and forth (and also did not provide other accommodations not related to training). (EEOC v. The Cheesecake Factory).
The jury’s still out on…
A shipping company did not provide closed captioning and/or an ASL interpreter for new-employee orientation for at least 19 of their package workers throughout the US (and also did not provide other accommodations not related to training). (EEOC v. FedEx)