Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 9
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
Applicant Awarded $100,000 Despite Agency Doubts About Applicant's Fitness for Position
Total Comments: 9
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $13.0760 | +0.0011 | +2.63% |
| F | $13.4554 | -0.0007 | +6.95% |
| C | $12.9082 | -0.0394 | +23.71% |
| S | $15.5321 | -0.0625 | +27.24% |
| I | $18.2310 | -0.1403 | +27.89% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $15.2768 | -0.0566 | +22.32% |
| L 2030 | $15.1461 | -0.0487 | +19.99% |
| L 2020 | $15.0617 | -0.0401 | +17.13% |
| L 2010 | $15.0897 | -0.0155 | +9.09% |
| L Income | $13.7765 | -0.0111 | +7.76% |
November 21, 2009
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
|
Twitter 
| Mobile
© 2009 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Kapehe case
retired
Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:26 AM
Post Reply
sounds like common sense prevailed for once. to make a job offer and then resind due to a disability trumps the later argument that there wasn't a disability. what nonsense. this 2 sided response by the govt seems to support all govt as not being credible. Pay and move forward.
Trying to have it both ways?
Army
Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:50 AM
Post Reply
First, he was denied a job because his diabetes was not well controlled; then the same agency tried to say that the diabetes related adaptations were no more than a minor dietary adjustment? If it was so minor, why wasn't he hired in the first place. If it's that big a deal, why isn't he considered disabled?
Can they have it both ways? A jury said they couldn't and a judge agreed. Good job.
Contradiction
VA
Mon Sep 28, 2009 1:45 PM
Post Reply
Congress passes laws and seemingly all too often the worst offenders of those laws are the federal government. A good call by the court - DOJ needs to be spanked.
Jury Award
ICE
Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:40 PM
Post Reply
This was ridiculous on the part of the jury. If the person could not do the job, he should not have even applied for it, and certainly, the employer has the choice of selecting a better candidate for the position!!!!
Wow. We get what we deserve
ICE
Mon Sep 28, 2009 6:58 PM
Post Reply
Just incredible. This guy wants it both ways. He wants the blue parking sticker "when it's convenient" but he also wants to be the big, bad G Man.
So our federal agents are no longer required to be in shape and function at a high level?
Oooh, I'd like to raid that terrorist den, but I'm feeling a little "off" right now. You guys go on ahead while I grab an apple and some insulin.
He either CAN do the job or he can't.
Was that question answered?
Re: Wow. We get what we deserve
fed
Tue Sep 29, 2009 8:53 AM
The article seems to say that he was offered the job, then the offer was revoked because of the diabetes. The question is whether the person can do the essential functions of the job or not. I have no idea. The government first said yes and then said no. Why? Apparantly, the jury said yes. The judge also said yes.
What are the job duties of the job he applied for? What is his physical condition?
I have no answers, and cannot draw conclusions based on the article.
Re: Wow. We get what we deserve
DOI
Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:53 PM
The FBI should be grateful it only cost them $100,000.
contradiction
frceast cherry point north carolina
Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:27 AM
Post Reply
the government seems to want it both ways. either the man can do the job or the court ruled correctly.
There will be more of these cases under the ADAAA
USPS
Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:56 AM
Post Reply
The new law relaxes the definition of disability, so that practically everyone who claims to be disabled will be deemed to be so, except for those whose vision impairments are totally corrected by ordinary eyeglasses. In fact, certain conditions -- cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, etc. -- will be deemed per se disabling, regardless of how well controlled, or even cured, by mitigating factors such as medication or treatment. While it's correct that the employer appeared to be making conflicting arguments in this case, there will be alot of future cases where the employer's decision that someone is medically unsuitable will be reversed -- after-the-fact -- with a big back pay payout.