Report this comment as spam or abuse

There is no “reply” button so I will post this and take the hint lol

This situation is not an illustration of positive discrimination so I didn’t see the point of mentioning it.

The crux of this matter is Essential functions of the job.”Essential functions” refers to those activities that are intrinsic to the job, they determined individually for each job. The exact definition from the law reads:

“The term ‘qualified individual with a disability’ means an individual with a disability, who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position…” (Title 1, Section 101, (8)).

If he could perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation, and the offer was still withdrawn, it would appear Jack was discriminated against.

This has been an eye opening debate..
Regards
Alys

Report this comment as spam or abuse

Your misreading the law. That does not mean “if the disabled person has not shown symptoms, they cannot be denied employment.” It means “if at any time in the future, the disabled person cannot do the job.” For example – if you were an epileptic and had only had one seizure a long time ago and had no current symptoms, you can still be denied a job working a motor vehicle or heavy machinery. Does it matter that you are currently asymptomatic? Nope, not under the law. The law cares about your diagnosis – and that you may have more seizures in the future.

You’re essentially arguing that because Jack was asymptomatic at the time, NBC had a duty to continue with him – and expose themselves to liability both for him and for others.

Not all disability discrimination is illegal (something you seem to not be noting). Discrimination is totally legal if physical fitness is a Bonafide Occupational Requirement (BFOR). To work on a show that mandates heavy physical challenges, the absence of physical problems is a BFOR. So Jack was technically discriminated against – but it’s legal. A man with Bipolar disorder can be denied employment as a police officer because of his disorder (another one of my cases) – perfectly legal. You are going off the assumption that discrimination is illegal – and it’s often not, such as the case here.

And I should point out that Jack’s offer was contingent upon the satuisfactory completion of a physical – the contract was not yet signed. The offer, at least from my reading, was that, due to his MS, he failed the exam. They offered him a position of comparable worth, he rejected it. Seems pretty simple.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

What you did not say is this is the case only if a disabled person cannot do the job which is on offer or which they were hired for.

No organization or person can treat a person with MS differently simply because of their diagnosis because this is discrimination.

Disability Discrimination
source-US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

“Disability discrimination occurs when an employer or other entity covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, or the Rehabilitation Act, as amended, treats a qualified individual with a disability who is an employee *or applicant* unfavorably because she has a disability.

Disability discrimination also occurs when a covered employer or other entity treats an applicant or employee less favorably because she has a history of a disability (such as cancer that is controlled or in remission) or because she is *believed* to have a physical or mental impairment that is not transitory (lasting or expected to last six months or less) and minor (even if she does not have such an impairment).”

As far as anyone knows NBC withdrew the offer because they believed Jack to have a physical or mental impairment where none has been shown to exist.

Its pretty clear. If an employer does choose to fire someone or withdraw an offer of employment, in this case because of an MS diagnosis, the burden of proof falls on the employer to prove that the person with MS cannot do the job.

NBC by offering the job felt Jack was a qualified applicant and so far have not produced such proof to the contrary.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

Diagnosis alone is grounds for altering a job. If you know about MS, it is a disease that doesn’t have any day-to-day condition. People with MS can go for long periods of time just fine and then quickly deteriorate and come back – it’s a rollercoaster illness. So you’re arguing that NBC had a duty to let him compete until he potentially had an attack and injured himself or someone else? That’s not the way the law works (trust me, I do this stuff for a living). I represented a security firm that denied a job to an applicant with epilepsy because he could have a seizure while holding the gun or Taser they used. They offered him a desk job, he refused and sued them, and they won – because even though his “day-to-day condition” was usually fine, the risk that he’d have a seizure and harm himself or someone else was too high and too much of a liability for the company. That’s how it works – not the way you suggest.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

It’s not pleasant when you have to discuss disability and limitations, since most people want to go beyond them. But it’s a safety and liability issue for the employer. So I side with NBC on this.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

Report this comment as spam or abuse

NBC did not say they had him medically vetted even though they said they do this for participants.

SO, they made a decision based solely on diagnosis and not on his physical ability or lack thereof.

This is disability discrimination.

Just because someone receives an MS diagnosis does not mean they are unable to do tasks/jobs.

But it does mean that from point of diagnosis people with MS or any other progressive, incurable disease are protected from disability discrimination. Something NBC should have known.

Whether or not Jack signed the contract is moot, NBC wanted him and stupidly made it appear they withdrew the offer stictly because of his diagnosis.

Guess what? That is illegal and Sharon is right, it is discrimination. It is her choice not to support NBC because of their actions.

Also, so the show is about strenous physical activity? WHo are they, or anyone, to judge what Jack Osbourne is capable of? Especially when they make a point of saying they medically vet potential participants and did not make a point of saying they did vet Jack.

NBC are fortunate the Osbournes are taking the high road and not suing them. Perhaps they should and teach the judgemental so and so’s at NBC a lesson where it counts-in their wallets.

People with this or similar conditions are in a very difficult position. People judge and often wrongly.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

Report this comment as spam or abuse

Let this UGLY, shrieking harpy go away and be gone forever. Quit your lame-ass ‘talk show’. Stop whoring out your kids’ problems for your own self-promotion

God, I can not STAND this woman or her ugly-ass no-talent daughter!!!

Report this comment as spam or abuse