Comments on: Beware this ADA trap in your hiring process

By: Joe Mork

Joe Mork — Wed, 19 May 2010 20:53:17 +0000

Traped, you say? Let he who is without typos cast the first stone. Also, I am sick to death of people being so thin-skinned on others’ behalf! If I want to say someone suffers from a condition I damned well will do so. I suffer from several disabilities, but I would never take umbrage at someone describing me as such. Get a life, Kibler! (Keebler?)

By: Ann Smith

Ann Smith — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:32:05 +0000

Amen to Bob Kibler! Individuals with epilepsy or other disabilities make great employees! I also agree with Aaron Hilliard. You should not be so presumptive of a potential incident that would prevent the hiring of someone who is genuinely qualified.

Shame on the writer!

Ann Smith

By: Aaron Hilliard

Aaron Hilliard — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 01:45:34 +0000

I would like to send Kudos to Bob Kibler for your response to the article and respond to the question of employer liability. If the person was a good enough employee to hire on a temp basis without the fear of exposure to accidents, I would assume that the epilepsy was under control. I would also caution HR Professionals that many people without epilepsy have the potential to experience seizures. Please do not let the presumption of a potential incident prevent you from selecting qualified candidates.

By: SLCCOM

SLCCOM — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 04:18:54 +0000

What part of “controlled by” don’t you get?

By: Bob Kibler

Bob Kibler — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:34:26 +0000

It is odd that the writer of this piece states that the ADA contains a “trap” for employers and that supervisors should “beware”. The ADA is no different than any orther employment law in the sense that employers need to understand the law and abide by it. This could have been a great article about following the law in the hiring of people with disabilities, instead it implies the law is bad for employers and sheds a negative light on the person with the disability. The employer was not traped by the law, but instead clearly violated the potential employee’s rights as a qualified job applicant. Also epilepsy is misspelled in the tags for the article, and it is not proper disability etiquette to say that someone “suffers from” the condition. Next time try “the man has epilepsy”.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:21:09 +0000

Although I can grasp the concept behind the ruling, I question where the liability exposure will rest if the individual has a seizure – will he injure himself and hold the employer responsible? Will he injure someone else and the employer again is responsible? At what point does the employer have protection against claims and lawsuits if they cannot make responsible decisions to afford protection to the employee, other employees and the company itself?