[IPAC-List] Testing Accommodations vs. On the Job Accommodations
Gene Carmean
GCarmean at med-tox.com
Tue Aug 19 14:02:18 EDT 2014
Dear Kevin:
This is an example of where having the work
sample that was originally correlated with the
ability test would come in handy. For those
unable to perform the test due to a limitation
such as this, the work sample could be offered as a substitute.
In this case it sounds as though you are writing
about the leg lift portion of the JSES. An
alternative might be to set up some kind of work
sample that mimics the task related to the test event.
Failing that, you could rely on the pre-placement
medical examination. However, I must tell you
that physicians really have limited tools when in
comes to assessing this. Basically, they can
look at grip strength. If the thumb and/or index
finger is missing, there can be a real loss of
both strength and manual dexterity. So, it is
important that the manual dexterity tasks be
identified as well as those requiring
strength. From there, it is left to the judgment
of the physician working in concert with
supervision and managment to determine if an accommodation is possible.
These cases are frequently problematic and
require individual determination. Good luck!
Gene Carmean
med-tox.com
At 08:59 AM 8/19/2014, you wrote:
>Send IPAC-List mailing list submissions to
> ipac-list at ipacweb.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://nine.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> ipac-list-request at ipacweb.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
> ipac-list-owner at ipacweb.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of IPAC-List digest..."
>
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Testing Accommodations vs. On the Job Accommodations
> (Reindl, Kevin)
> 2. Re: Testing Accommodations vs. On the Job Accommodations
> (RICHARD TONOWSKI)
> 3. Re: Testing Accommodations vs. On the Job Accommodations
> (keith.poole at phoenix.gov)
>
>List-Post: <mailto:ipac-list at ipacweb.org>
>From: "Reindl, Kevin" <K1RQ at pge.com>
>Precedence: list
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: "ipac-list at ipacweb.org" <IPAC-List at ipacweb.org>
>Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 14:42:31 +0000
>Message-ID:
><079188FA4165364E93971633DC21D7D2467F51C8 at EXCHMBSF322.Utility.pge.com>
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="_000_079188FA4165364E93971633DC21D7D2467F51C8EXCHMBSF322Util_"
>Subject: [IPAC-List] Testing Accommodations vs. On the Job Accommodations
>Message: 1
>
>I wanted to see if anyone is willing to share
>approach/opinion about the timing and sequence
>of considering job and testing accommodations
>under the ADA. My question is whether testing
>accommodations should be treated separately and
>prior to any discussion of accommodations on the
>job. I’ll try to provide a simple example to illustrate my question:
>
>Suppose a job applicant who has limited use of
>one hand applies for a job that periodically
>requires using a jackhammer. Suppose also that
>one of the tests required for the job measures
>back strength, however, the apparatus used to
>measure back strength requires the test taker to
>grip and pull back on a bar attached to a chain,
>and the only way the test can be performed is
>with the use of 2 hands gripping the bar (i.e.,
>gripping of a bar with both hands is really just
>an artifact of the testing apparatus, and not an
>ability that the test is designed to measure).
>
>My question is this: Can/should we consider
>whether the person can perform the job with or
>without a reasonable accommodation as a reason
>not to accommodate him on the test? OR
is it
>better to make the testing accommodation without
>regard to the job in question and save the
>determination of whether he can perform the job until after testing?
>
>Thanks in advance for your thoughts,
>
>Kevin Reindl
>Pacific Gas & Electric
>Human Resources
>Performance, Selection & Inclusion
>245 Market Street, N2J
>San Francisco, CA 94105
>Office: 415-973-7013
>Mobile: 619-322-3368
><mailto:k1rq at pge.com>k1rq at pge.com
>
>
>
>----------
>PG&E is committed to protecting our customers'
>privacy. To learn more, please visit
><http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/>http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/
>
>----------
>List-Post: <mailto:ipac-list at ipacweb.org>
>From: "RICHARD TONOWSKI" <RICHARD.TONOWSKI at EEOC.GOV>
>Precedence: list
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: <IPAC-List at ipacweb.org>,<K1RQ at pge.com>
>References:
><079188FA4165364E93971633DC21D7D2467F51C8 at EXCHMBSF322.Utility.pge.com>
>In-Reply-To:
><079188FA4165364E93971633DC21D7D2467F51C8 at EXCHMBSF322.Utility.pge.com>
>Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 11:18:59 -0400
>Message-ID: <53F332A3020000F400057B61 at netmail04.eeoc.gov>
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=__Part5163FCF3.1__="
>Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Testing Accommodations vs. On the Job Accommodations
>Message: 2
>
>Kevin,
>
>In my opinion, the test is the test and the job
>is the job. The applicant's issue is an
>accommodation on the test. That's the issue to
>deal with. The next issue, if there is one, is
>a request for job accommodation.
>
>I suspect that life isn't always that
>simple. But the problem (in the worst possible
>light) is that if it looks like you've made a
>decision that "those people" can't be
>accommodated on the job and so you'll "spare
>them the trouble" of taking the test, you're asking for a complaint.
>
>Rich
>
> >>> "Reindl, Kevin" <K1RQ at pge.com> 08/19/14 10:42 AM >>>
>I wanted to see if anyone is willing to share
>approach/opinion about the timing and sequence
>of considering job and testing accommodations
>under the ADA. My question is whether testing
>accommodations should be treated separately and
>prior to any discussion of accommodations on the
>job. I?ll try to provide a simple example to illustrate my question:
>
>Suppose a job applicant who has limited use of
>one hand applies for a job that periodically
>requires using a jackhammer. Suppose also that
>one of the tests required for the job measures
>back strength, however, the apparatus used to
>measure back strength requires the test taker to
>grip and pull back on a bar attached to a chain,
>and the only way the test can be performed is
>with the use of 2 hands gripping the bar (i.e.,
>gripping of a bar with both hands is really just
>an artifact of the testing apparatus, and not an
>ability that the test is designed to measure).
>
>My question is this: Can/should we consider
>whether the person can perform the job with or
>without a reasonable accommodation as a reason
>not to accommodate him on the test? OR?is it
>better to make the testing accommodation without
>regard to the job in question and save the
>determination of whether he can perform the job until after testing?
>
>Thanks in advance for your thoughts,
>
>Kevin Reindl
>Pacific Gas & Electric
>Human Resources
>Performance, Selection & Inclusion
>245 Market Street, N2J
>San Francisco, CA 94105
>Office: 415-973-7013
>Mobile: 619-322-3368
><mailto:k1rq at pge.com>k1rq at pge.com
>
>
>
>
>----------
>PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy.
>To learn more, please visit
><http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/>http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/
>
>----------
>List-Post: <mailto:ipac-list at ipacweb.org>
>From: keith.poole at phoenix.gov
>Precedence: list
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Cc: ipac-list at ipacweb.org
>To: "Reindl, Kevin" <K1RQ at pge.com>
>References:
><079188FA4165364E93971633DC21D7D2467F51C8 at EXCHMBSF322.Utility.pge.com>
>In-Reply-To:
><079188FA4165364E93971633DC21D7D2467F51C8 at EXCHMBSF322.Utility.pge.com>
>Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 08:42:44 -0700
>Message-ID:
><OFABCAE2CD.41B5897F-ON07257D39.0052D2BC-07257D39.00564F5B at phoenix.gov>
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="=_alternative 00564F5607257D39_="
>Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Testing Accommodations vs. On the Job Accommodations
>Message: 3
>
>It's a good question and I'm interested in
>hearing thoughts on this as well. It's
>something we still occasionally struggle
>with. Years ago I worked in our ADA
>accommodations and job placement division,
>finding alternate jobs or training for employees
>with permanent work restrictions. The
>accommodation process for a 'real job' takes a
>lot of analysis and discussion with the
>applicant/employee, their doctor or rehab
>specialist, the departments that have possible
>jobs, etc. It sometimes required job trials
>where they either worked while on LTD payments
>or sometimes taking the job for a limited time
>period. So finding a 'fit' could take weeks or
>months. We might take a slightly different
>approach for a new hire vs existing employee but
>the analysis and interactive process doesn't
>really change if the applicant is very motivated.
>
>On top of that I'm aware of a couple employees
>who came to our agency as new hires that had
>impairments that I never would have imagined
>would 'work out'. One example being a heavy
>equipment mechanic with one hand, and an Human
>Resources Aide in the employment testing
>division that was legally blind. Both were successful in their positions.
>
>So my general approach is that we provide
>testing accommodations if they are reasonable
>for a testing process, without getting too much
>into the nuances of the actual job environment,
>or trying to factor in how long it might take an
>applicant in the real job to acclimate and find
>a situation that works for them. As an aside,
>while I believe the vast majority of applicants
>requesting accommodations just sincerely wanted
>to take the test and be considered for the job,
>there has been more than occasion where I'm
>pretty sure it was a "mystery shopper," from
>where and what motivation I couldn't really
>say. Trying to do too much analysis at the
>front end of a selection process (can they
>really do the job?) probably is just going to
>raise too many red flags and get your testing
>folks wrapped up in too much detail.
>
>
>Keith Poole
>Human Resources Supervisor
>City of Phoenix HR Department
>135 N 2nd Ave
>Phoenix, AZ 85003
>Phone: (602) 262-7140
>Fax: (602) 495-5498
>Email: keith.poole at phoenix.gov
>
>
>
>From: "Reindl, Kevin" <K1RQ at pge.com>
>To: "ipac-list at ipacweb.org" <IPAC-List at ipacweb.org>,
>Date: 08/19/2014 07:42 AM
>Subject: [IPAC-List] Testing
>Accommodations vs. On the Job Accommodations
>Sent by: "IPAC-List" <ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org>
>
>
>
>
>I wanted to see if anyone is willing to share
>approach/opinion about the timing and sequence
>of considering job and testing accommodations
>under the ADA. My question is whether testing
>accommodations should be treated separately and
>prior to any discussion of accommodations on the
>job. I’ll try to provide a simple example to illustrate my question:
>
>Suppose a job applicant who has limited use of
>one hand applies for a job that periodically
>requires using a jackhammer. Suppose also that
>one of the tests required for the job measures
>back strength, however, the apparatus used to
>measure back strength requires the test taker to
>grip and pull back on a bar attached to a chain,
>and the only way the test can be performed is
>with the use of 2 hands gripping the bar (i.e.,
>gripping of a bar with both hands is really just
>an artifact of the testing apparatus, and not an
>ability that the test is designed to measure).
>
>My question is this: Can/should we consider
>whether the person can perform the job with or
>without a reasonable accommodation as a reason
>not to accommodate him on the test? OR
is it
>better to make the testing accoommodation
>without regard to the job in question and save
>the determination of whether he can perform the job until after testing?
>
>Thanks in advance for your thoughts,
>
>Kevin Reindl
>Pacific Gas & Electric
>Human Resources
>Performance, Selection & Inclusion
>245 Market Street, N2J
>San Francisco, CA 94105
>Office: 415-973-7013
>Mobile: 619-322-3368
><mailto:k1rq at pge.com>k1rq at pge.com
>
>
>
>
>
>----------
>
>PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy.
>To learn more, please visit
><http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/>http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/
>
>
>----------
>_______________________________________________________
>IPAC-List
>IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
><http://nine.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list>http://nine.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list
>
>
>_______________________________________________________
>IPAC-List
>IPAC-List at ipacweb.org
>http://nine.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list
Gene Carmean
MED-TOX Health Services
3350 Shelby Street, Ste. 200
Ontario, California 91764
909 944 3181 Tel
www.med-tox.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nine.pairlist.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20140819/988ba21d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the IPAC-List
mailing list