|
|
|
| Issue: |
A hiring manager has interviewed several applicants for a computer programmer position and has determined that one of the applicants, Arnold, is the best qualified. However, during the interview Arnold disclosed that he has a child with a disability. The hiring manager is reluctant to offer the position to Arnold based on his belief that Arnold’s need to care for his child will have a negative impact on his work attendance or performance. Is this a legitimate reason for not offering the position to Arnold? |
 |
|
|
Answer: |
No. In addition to protecting qualified applicants and employees with disabilities from employment discrimination, one provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)—the "association" provision—protects applicants and employees from discrimination based on their known relationship or association with an individual with a disability, whether or not the applicant or employee has a disability.
The purpose of the association provision is to prevent employers from taking adverse actions based on unfounded stereotypes and assumptions about individuals who associate with people who have disabilities. Thus, the ADA’s association provision makes it unlawful to refuse to hire an individual who has a child with a disability based on an assumption that the applicant will be away from work excessively or be otherwise unreliable.
Here are some more examples of employment actions that are unlawful under the ADA’s association provision:
- Terminating an employee who volunteers at a homeless shelter with a high population of people living with HIV/AIDS because the employer believes its image will be tarnished if its employees associate with the "kind of person" who contracts HIV/AIDS.
- Terminating a chef whose boyfriend is HIV-positive based on a fear that the chef will contract the disease from her boyfriend and transmit it to the customers through food.
- Rejecting a part-time employee’s application for full-time work because both the employee’s mother and sister had breast cancer, which the employer fears the employee will also acquire and which will prevent her form reliably working the hours required of a full-time position.
- Transferring an employee to a lower-paying position to avoid having to interact with an employee whose son has an intellectual disability.
- Refusing to hire an applicant (or extending an offer that did not include health insurance available to other employees) based on the increased health insurance costs that will be caused by his wife's disability.
- Telling an employee who has a child with Downs Syndrome that the child is not welcome at an annual holiday party for employees’ children.
- Supervisory harassment of an employee whose wife has a severe disability by repeatedly expressing concerns over the employee’s ability to do his job because of his need to care for his wife, setting unrealistic timeframes for projects, yelling at the employee in front of co-workers about the need to meet approaching deadlines, and requiring the employee to follow policies that other employees are not required to follow (such as requesting leave a week in advance).
- Denying an employee’s request for unpaid leave to assist her mother with a disability while granting another employee’s request for unpaid leave to attend a father-son camp with his son.
- Denying an employee attorney’s request for leave to provide pro bono legal services to individuals with psychiatric disabilities if attorneys are generally permitted to take leave to provide pro bono legal services.
Source: EEOC's Questions and Answers about the Association Provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act, http://eeoc.gov/facts/association_ada.html. |
|
|
