[il-talk] Vision requirement on job descripton

[Bill Reif]

Hello Kelly and list,

In the case you describe, it is the ability to independently assess 
aspects of the photos, and not the ability to see, that is the essential 
characteristic of the job.  An astute recruiter would have described the 
qualification as it relates to a job duty.  There are few activities 
that inherently require sight; and in most cases, borrowing the sight of 
others will suffice.  I'm certain that Patti Chang, through her staff, 
can adequately assess building conditions through photo descriptions and 
reports.  Her ability to see the photos is less important than the 
determinations the inspectors and the attorneys she supervises make.  
She, in a close case, would certainly question them regarding details of 
the photos, which questioning would improve their investigative 
abilities in the future.

In allowing a recruiter to state job requirements in terms of the 
ability to see, you would open the door to their imposing their 
prejudices on the selection process.  This is analogous to employers 
who, falsely believing the ability to drive is an essential 
characteristic of their offered position, insist that applicants hold a 
valid driver's license emen in cities where reliable public 
transportation makes that requirement unnecessary.

We don't even know what type of position Glenn is applying for.  If only 
a small percentage of the job requires visual acuity beyond what he has, 
that situation can be reasonably accommodated.

Cordially,
Bill


On 2/20/2012 8:37 AM, Kelly Pierce wrote:
> Glen,
>
> Do you want the radiologist diagnosing suspected cancer to be blind
> and unable to independently see the imaging films?  It sounds like
> your position is that no job can ever require vision as a specific
> quality from the applicant.  some jobs require without accommodation
> visual analysis or visual monitoring as an essential part of the
> position.
>
> Kelly
>
>
>
> On 2/20/12, GlennMooreIII at yahoo.com<GlennMooreIII at yahoo.com>  wrote:
>> Maybe some of our lawyers could answer this:
>> I'm paraphrasing, but is it legal for a company to state on a job
>> description that an employee must have adequate vision to perform all
>> requirements ef the job efficiently?
>> (I can find out the exact wording if it helps)
>>
>> If I understand correctly, the ADA only guarantees a disabled worker be
>> provided with  accomodations to perform a job, if those accomodations are
>> "reasonable" and that with them he or she would perform comperably to a
>> typical qualified applicant or worker, and protect the worker from
>> discriminatory hiring/firing if they can perform the job to standard, but
>> can a company or NFP actually require a physical attribute to have or keep
>> the job?
>>
>> -Glenn III
>> (from iPhone: 1 (847) 899-9801)
>> _______________________________________________
>> il-talk mailing list
>> il-talk at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/il-talk_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> il-talk:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/il-talk_nfbnet.org/kellytalk%40gmail.com
>>
> _______________________________________________
> il-talk mailing list
> il-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/il-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for il-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/il-talk_nfbnet.org/billreif%40ameritech.net
>