[IPAC-List] Testing Accommodations vs. On the Job Accommodations

Reindl, Kevin K1RQ at pge.com
Tue Aug 19 19:20:04 EDT 2014

Yes, good point about the defensibility of a non-accommodation and job relatedness. I believe too that testing accommodations should be considered separately from the job accommodation considerations.

Thanks Ronald for your input!


From: Ronald Clare [mailto:rpclare at aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 12:12 PM
Cc: <IPAC-List at ipacweb.org>; Reindl, Kevin
Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Testing Accommodations vs. On the Job Accommodations

While it is true the "test is the test...", we do strive to relate the two ( isn't that the point). Accommodation on one may have implications re the other. I would rather err liberally on the test since they may never get to the job accommodation point. I'd rather argue, he can't use the jack hammer than argue the validity of a simulation task that isn't a replica of the real task.
Sent from my iPad


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.


>>> "Reindl, Kevin" <K1RQ at pge.com<mailto: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
k1rq at pge.com<mailto: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/
IPAC-List at ipacweb.org<mailto:IPAC-List at ipacweb.org>

PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy. 
To learn more, please visit http://www.pge.com/about/company/privacy/customer/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nine.pairlist.net/pipermail/ipac-list/attachments/20140819/c6acfde7/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the IPAC-List mailing list