[blindlaw] Valid driver's license anyone? When is an exclusionary employment qualification discriminatory?

[Elizabeth Rene]

 Hi all,
Within the last week, I, an attorney, have encountered two job announcements listing the possession of a valid driver's license as a basic requirement. TeamChild's staff attorney must have one, along with access to a vehicle, "to meet client and agency needs throughout the county." The City of Seattle's Deputy Hearings Examiner must have one, along with proof of an exemplary driving history, to serve Seattle and smaller, contracting cities. 
No driver's license on your résumé? No second look.
How many others have encountered this barrier posing as a BFOQ?
One could argue that driving a car isn't an essential function of law practice, but the definition of law practice and the determination of how client needs must be met have fluid boundaries. Get two lawyers together to order cheese pizza and they'll argue over what makes the best crust - and they're friends! What if they don't want you at the table?
Blind non-lawyers must run into this problem every day. Sad to say, some employment-lawyer colleague of mine has helped create it.
Having a valid driver's license has got to be just one of many required job qualifications (seeming   needful to someone at the workplace) that tell the cane-carrying job seeker, "Blind people need not apply."
All of this more than 25 years post-ADA and more than 40 years after the passage of our own Law Against Discrimination.  
In this era of "No telephone calls please" and computer-based applicant screening, we need an effective way to expose and confront discriminatory minimum job qualifications, short of having a direct pipeline to the EEOC, that will actually result in paid employment.
Suggestions anyone?
Best regards,

Elizabeth M René 
Attorney at Law 
WSBA #10710 
KCBA #21824
rene0373 at gmail.com