I swear, when I first heard about this I thought it had to be a story from The Onion. A federal judge here in Chicago has entered a consent decree requiring a company to pay $100,000 to a woman whose job offer was revoked after the company’s owner realized she is blind.
How did this happen? Did the woman apply on line? Was she hired, ahem, sight unseen? Was the owner simply not paying attention when the blind woman showed up for the interview? Was she interviewed over the phone?
According to a (subscription only) story in the Chicago Law Bulletin, Jocelyn Snower was hired as a recruiter by the owner of Balance Staffing and had already worked a couple of months before the owner realized she doesn’t have 20/20 vision.
“What’s unique about Jocelyn is that she’s legally blind, but she doesn’t use a walking stick or guide dog, or anything like that,” { trial attorney Laura R. }Feldman said. “When I first met her, I had no idea she was blind.”
The EEOC attorneys said Snower started working for the staffing company in June 2006 and that on Aug. 9, 2006, she received notification that her job offer had been revoked. They contended that the owner of the staffing company found out through another employee that the woman was blind, specifically that she couldn’t drive.
Okay, let’s review. This woman had gone through the application process, passed the interview, was offered the job, and had worked for two months. She must have been capable, right?
“It’s the EEOC’s position that she did not need to drive for the job — that there’s great public transportation, and she takes public transportation,” Feldman said.
{ EEOC supervisory trial attorney Diane I.} Smason said the woman served as a recruiter in the past at other companies, and she had already proved to be a capable recruiter despite her disability.
The EEOC alleged that the owner revoked Jocelyn’s job offer the minute he found out she was blind, even though she had already started recruiting for him. The EEOC further alleged that the defendants refused to pay Jocelyn wages for hours of work that she already performed, because of her disability.
I didn’t use a white cane or a guide dog when I first started losing my sight. I quit driving or riding my bike, but I could still see well enough to walk to work. Most of my day was spent counseling college students on study abroad options, I could have done that with my eyes closed. As my eyesight got worse, though, I started making mistakes in the office. I still remember spilling grounds all over the place on my way to make the morning coffee. I had to sit close to my computer screen to see the words. I ran into tabletops. At one point my boss took me aside and told me I wouldn’t be going to the annual convention with my colleagues. “You’ll embarrass the office,” she said. Months later, my contract was terminated.
But that was way back in 1985, before the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed. This is the 21st century. An employer today would never dream of firing someone simply because they couldn’t see well enough to drive, would they?
The defense, which denied the allegations, was represented by Seyfarth, Shaw LLP partners Gerald L. Maatman Jr., and Christopher J. DeGroff, along with associate Brandon L. Spurlock. They could not be reached for comment.
I may be mistaken, but wouldn’t they have to provide her with a driver, if driving were part of the gig and she had already been hired? I read to someone who is blind at her worksite and although I do not get paid, the Feds must provide me with subway fare. (Though—full disclosure here—there’s so much red tape involved for the employee to get the MetroCard for me that we just skip it.)
This story just stinks. And $100,000 isn’t nearly enough money to cover “pain and suffering.” I have seen what losing a job does to the self-worth of disabled people.
Can you tell us the name of the company? So we can boycott? Or do something despicable on Facebook?
Sure! Happy to share his info! Would love it if you “exposed” him on Facebook. The business owner’s name is Robert Feinstein, the business is called Balance Staffing or Balance Financial Inc. Here from the Chicago Law Bulletin story:
Unbelievable! Hope someone from the Trib or the SunTimes gets a hold of this one.
Yes, and maybe that “someone” should be…me! Was already thinking about writing something up about this for NPR,theADA celebrates its 20th anniversary next month, the timing is good for an essay. Maybe I’ll contact my “people” at the Tribune and Sun Times, too.
And back to Benita, About the driver thing. I think you are right, Joecelyn would have to be provided with a driver if driving were part of the gig. My guess is that really driving was *not* part of the gig, just something the employer used as grounds to fire her. Or if driving *was* a part of the gig, Jocelyn decided to forego the red tape you alluded to hear in order to procure a driver. She figured she could get the job done using public trans.
At times I have considered filling out the paperwork to get a driver paid for, or a discount on cab rides, etc. but in the end figure, heck, a lot of people in the city who are *able* to drive choose not to, they use public trans to get around, I can do that, too! Disclaimer: I do receive a discount on public trans due to my disability and do appreciate that benefit.
But maybe “must own a car” or “ability to drive” was in the job description? Maybe she lied about that in the interview?
Hi! No-the job description did not say anything about the ability to drive.
Maybe. But don’t you think that would have come out in the trial? Guess I’d have to investigate. Acc’ding to the Chicago Law Bulletin story,the defense attorneys *did* deny the allegations. They refused to comment, though.
Just noticed that the quote I wanted to include in my comment to Benita about the name of the business owner and the name of his company didn’t come through up there. from the Chicago Law Bulletin story:
“The EEOC contended that when the owner of Balance Staffing, Robert Feinstein, hired Jocelyn Snower, a recruiter, to help him launch a Balance Staffing center
in Illinois, which was named Balance Financial Inc., the owner did not realize that the new hire was blind, the attorneys said. The agency alleged that
when the owner did realize that the woman was blind, he immediately revoked her job offer even though she already started recruiting for him.”
In 2005, I attended workshops held by “Equip for Equality” prior to returning to the work force. I was told that it was up to me to choose to disclose that I am legally blind. I experimented with both options as I interviewed for teaching positions. I was turned down for various reasons when I disclosed in the interview. I was offered a contract with Chicago Public Schools when I did not disclose and did a great job as a sunstitute. I declined the offer for my own reasons.
I interviewed and was hired to teach adult literacy. After 4 months my supervisor said, “Tell me about your eyes. I see you have to get very close to the screen on the copy machine.” I told her about my condition. She offered me a job to teach summer classes.
This is a not for profit business. I am really good at what I do.
Maybe “for profits” think differently. This company acted illegally.
To my blog readers, I know Andrea personally, she is a student in the “Me, Myself andI” memoir class I facilitate. I can tell you, she is *very* good at what she does. The non-profit she works for now is lucky to have her. Go, Andrea!
Beth, as this is a very local business and I am not in its locality, I believe your outing him through your connections with the newspapers and WBEZ would be far more useful than my doing it. Just be certain that you have all the facts before you take to the barricades. It would be good if you could/might get in touch with Jocelyn Snower.
Ah, Benita, I am one step ahead of you. Already this morning I put out word on a list serv for people who are blind, asked if anyone on there knew Jocelyn and if so, requested they contact me privately. If nothing comes of that I’ll ask over at Blind Service Association, Guild for the Blind, Chicago Lighthouse. If all else fails I can contact the woma who wrote the story for Chicago Law Bulletin, or maybe get in touch with Jocelyn’s lawyers. Don’t your worry, Sherlock. I’m on top of this one!
Excellent idea for NPR!
I’m extremely glad to hear justice has prevailed and Jocelyn has won her case.
Alison, I couldn’t agree with you more. I did manage to find contact info for Jocelyn, and after talking with her on the phone I wrote up a piece for NPR. Submitted it to my editor there, and…rats! She’s on vacation. Got an “out of office” reply.
Waiting until editor returns to hear back. Hoping to get more word out about Jocelyn’s successful court case.
Having known Jocelyn for many years, I was thrilled to hear of her victory in court. She is an inspiration to all who know her, especially those with a disability. She has never let her visual impairment get in the way of living a full, productive life. Bravo for Jocelyn!!
I am thrilled for Jocelyn. Get the word out – what this guy did is awful. It would be a great story for NPR.
I agree! Bravo for Jocelyn! Will do all I can to get word out — the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act is July 26, I’m expecting NPR and/or Chicago Public Radio and/or Chicago newspapers might be interested in using Jocelyn’s story in conjunction with that. Stay tuned…!
Leave a Response