[Jobs] Driver's license.doc

Edwin Rodriguez conibodyworks at gmail.com
Thu Apr 28 01:53:59 CDT 2011

How about the concept that employers should ask for, forms of government
identification rather than using the generic term "drivers license" after
all it is 2011 and the government as an employer should set an example! I
would argue that this is a direct form of discrimination and if you think I
am exagerating,I would invite you to read the ADA which unfortunately many
government employees I.E. politicians, have not!  

-----Original Message-----
From: jobs-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:jobs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
Albert J Rizzi
Sent: April 27, 2011 10:25 AM
To: 'Jobs for the Blind'
Subject: Re: [Jobs] Driver's license.doc

I am in full agreement with you on this one Gail. I would ask that we all
consider the requirement for providing a drivers license to mean a valid
state id with picture. As it stands, if one were a driver previously, the
same id assigned to your drivers license is the same one assigned to your
state id, at least that is the practice in new york state. 

Albert J. Rizzi, M.Ed.
My Blind Spot, Inc.
90 Broad Street - 18th Fl.
New York, New York  10004
PH: 917-553-0347
Fax: 212-858-5759
"The person who says it cannot be done, shouldn't interrupt the one who is
doing it."

Visit us on Facebook LinkedIn

-----Original Message-----
From: jobs-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:jobs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
Gail Snider
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 10:19 AM
To: Jobs for the Blind
Subject: Re: [Jobs] Driver's license.doc

I would like to add a comment about the NON-Driver's ID, such as the picture
ID that I must have with me at all times.  When I am asked if I have a
driver's license, I pull out my non-driver's picture ID and that does the
job.  As a resident of Washington, DC, I have had to gain admittance to some
pretty security-conscious places, be they Federal Government buildings or
the local library.  In all circumstances, my ID serves as the equivalent of
a driver's license, and I would encourage other blind people to give
themselves credit for having a legal picture ID rather than being scared off
by the term 'driver's license'.
Does anyone else have thoughts about this?
Gail Snider
Information and Referral Specialist
Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind
8720 Georgia Avenue, Suite 210
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: 240-737-5170
Fax: 301-589-7281
Email: gsnider at clb.org
Web: ww <http://www.clb.org/> w.clb.org


From: jobs-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:jobs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
Dick Davis
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 9:41 AM
To: 'Jobs for the Blind'; 'Rehabilitation Counselor Mailing List'
Cc: 'Shawn Mayo'; 'Al Spooner'
Subject: [Jobs] Driver's license.doc

Hi Everyone,
I wrote this a short while ago, and thought it might be of help to the rest
of you. What I describe seems to be a rapidly growing problem.
Dick Davis

National Federation of the Blind 

Employment Committee

100 E. 22nd St.

Minneapolis, MN 55404-2514


April 15, 2011


Dear Employer:


Over the past couple of years, I've seen a large number of job postings that
require a valid state driver's license. These job postings don't require the
kind of commercial driver's license needed by people who drive
professionally.  They require the kind of garden variety driver's license
that mom, dad, and the kids need to drive their car, minivan, or SUV.  


The odd thing about the job postings I've seen that contain this requirement
is that most of them don't even list driving as an essential job function. I
know lots of blind jobseekers who were able to perform all the essential
functions of a job, but decided not to apply when they saw the valid
driver's license requirement.  


I'm sure there are good reasons why the valid driver's license requirement
finds its way into job descriptions (and it does into lots of them). A valid
driver's license permits employees to drive company vehicles or use their
own for work functions. It also serves as a handy means of identification.  


But in my opinion, the requirement is discriminatory, because it excludes
blind people as a class.  That's because no blind person can qualify for a
state driver's license. If you know anything about civil rights law, a
requirement that excludes an entire class of people from applying is a
definite no-no.  That's especially the case when driving isn't listed as an
essential function of the job.   


The only time when such a requirement isn't discriminatory is when operating
a motor vehicle is an essential function of the job, and no reasonable
accommodation is available.  An example of this would be a job where a
significant portion of the employee's workday is spent picking up people in
the morning, driving them to a social service program, and taking them back
home in the afternoon.  


It would be unreasonable for a blind person to apply for that kind of job.
But if, on the other hand, the job just required some travel, it would be
reasonable for the individual to apply.  Blind people use mass transit,
taxis, shuttle vans, intercity buses, trains, planes, and paid drivers to
get from place to place.  They do so efficiently, and they've been doing it
for decades.  


In that case, requiring that the blind person have a valid driver's license
and drive a company car would be discriminatory, since reasonable
accommodations like the ones listed above are in fact available.  The
argument "because we've always done it that way" isn't going to hold up in
court if the blind person files a civil rights complaint.  I know, because
I've served as an expert witness in a number of discrimination cases.  


So, what is an employer to do?  I think the best approach is to leave the
valid driver's license requirement out of the job description entirely
unless driving (not just getting from place to place, but actually operating
a motor vehicle) is an essential function of the job, and no reasonable
accommodation is available.  


If the job requires travel, say so, and say how much travel is required, but
don't specify the method that must be used. Let the blind job applicant
figure that out, and if the explanation seems reasonable to you, hire them.
If you want an employee to have identification, say that you want a "valid
state driver's license or state ID".  Blind people can get state ID's, the
same amount of proof is required, and they look virtually the same.  


In a broader sense, make sure all your job descriptions state the essential
functions in detail, but avoid specifying the exact methods to be used. And
especially avoid physical requirements like "good vision" unless you are
absolutely certain that there is no way a person can perform the tasks using
nonvisual methods.  (The only way you can be absolutely certain is if you
know a lot about blindness and blind people, which isn't usually the case.)


A couple of final points - blind people are not stupid; they have no
interest in taking unreasonable risks, or failing and getting fired.  If an
individual doesn't think they can perform the required functions, they won't
apply, and if they do, they'll be prepared to describe how they can do it. 


It's simple, it's fair, and it beats heck out of having to respond to a
civil rights complaint.  


Best wishes,

Richard "Dick" Davis

Committee Chair


Jobs mailing list
Jobs at nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Jobs:

More information about the Jobs mailing list