Blind News Digest # 1184
Bill McGarry
Issue # 1184
Tuesday, November 21, 1995
Today's Topics:
******
Re: tactile graphics advice
Web Site of Interest: Airport Info Kiosk Available
Free ASCII texts
Blind Newsletter notice
"Beware or be amused."
Re: `Refreshable' Braille displays?
RFB&D Online System Update
employment in the information age
replacement for Oscar software
******
To subscribe to the Blind News Digest mailing list or have your
thoughts in the next issue, please send electronic mail to
Bill McGarry at any of the following addresses:
UUCP: uunet!bunker!wtm
INTERNET: w...@bunker.shel.isc-br.com
BITNET: blin...@ndsuvm1.bitnet
Fidonet: The Handicap News BBS (141/420) 1-203-926-6168
(300 - 28,800 baud, 24 hours)
Bill McGarry (Moderator)
(203) 926-6187
------
Subject: Re: tactile graphics advice
From: j...@arken.arkenstone.org (Jim Fruchterman)
Metec of Germany has such a two dimensional braille display operating.
It is quite expensive: $40,000 or more per unit. It uses the standard
Braille cell technology developed for braille displays. Dr. Eugen
Schaefer is the President of Metec.
I have heard of many attempts to build such a device, but this is the
only one I am aware of that you can theoretically purchase with the
necessary funds.
Jim Fruchterman j...@arkenstone.org
President Arkenstone, Inc.
1390 Borregas Avenue 1-800-444-4443
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA 1-408-752-2200
"Information Access for Everyone!" Fax: 1-408-745-6739
------
Subject: Web Site of Interest: Airport Info Kiosk Available
From: kf...@teleport.com (Kelly Ford)
Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016
If you have ever travelled to a new airport and needed to know about your
transportation options or the other things that you can find from the
information kiosks that are increasingly popular, check out
http://www.quickaid.com. This is a web site by QuickAID, the company
creating the information for the kiosks in many U.S. airports.
The information is the same you'd find if you went to an airport kiosk.
So while it might not be quite as easy as going up to a machine once
you've arrived, a little planning and you can find what you are looking for.
Kelly Ford
kf...@teleport.com
See my home page at http://metro.turnpike.net/kford/index.html.
------
Subject: Free ASCII texts
From: 7102...@CompuServe.COM (Odile Santiago)
Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736)
A variety of free ASCII texts are available at
the following web site, many of them unavailable
elsewhere.
http://users.aol.com/specpress/
Odile S.
------
Subject: Blind Newsletter notice
From: 10026...@compuserve.com (Gary Zeller)
I am assisting a blind friend to develop a topic for a thesis in
psychology. She is interested in obtaining any information that
might be available regarding sighted children of blind parents
including personal experiences, studies or any research material on
this topic.
Anyone with information may contact directly me via e-mail.
Thank you for any help you may provide.
Gary Zeller in Hamburg, Germany
------
Subject: "Beware or be amused."
From: mic...@speech.braille.uwo.ca (Michael Lewis)
Organization: The Computer Braille Facility
Just as a note of overly conservative caution, I thought I'd pass
this little tale of personal stupidity along
Ever been bitten by a bank machine or A.T.M.? I have Seems I was
getting some cash yesterday and the machine in question spit out
the last $5 bill at an odd angle Being the greedy and curious sort,
I checked to see if any other bills were odd-angled or stuck.
SLAM! BAM! The cash slot closed on my finger and those suckers
have TEETH! I'm not sure whether to follow this up with a call to
the bank's Consumer Safety Division, but I thought I'd let you
folks know about what happened Chuckle or warning, take your pick
Just remember, in my case the bank really did seem to want its
pound of flesh--or rather mine Incidentally, the finger in question
was the third finger, leaving me somewhat socially inadequate for
the rest of the day yesterday and making today's transcription a
bit less than a treat to do Take care
Michael Lewis
------
Subject: Re: `Refreshable' Braille displays?
From: G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk (J. P. Gilliver (John))
Organization: 255 software
`Refreshable' Braille displays?
I have come across this expression several times recently; I was
wondering what it meant. Are not all Braille displays refreshable, apart
from embosser output? I may be missing something, so would appreciate an
explanation!
--
J. P. Gilliver (John); G6JPG @ GB7NNA on packet, john.g...@gecm.com at work.
"It is the British habit to back into the future, grumbling."
Dieter Helm, R4, 1995-11-15 17:59.
This posting does not represent the opinion of my neighbour's cat, or any other.
------
Subject: RFB&D Online System Update
From: SLNO...@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU (Stephen L. Noble)
slno...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu (BITNET: SLNOBL01@ULKYVM)
PHONE: 502-852-0531 FAX: 502-852-7701
(Please pardon my cross-posting)
This is to announce that the Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic online
catalog has been moved to a different Internet host site, and that the old
r2d2.jvnc.net address will no longer be functional. The new site for the
catalog is wais.jvnc.net at the 4445 port number. All procedures for
accessing and using the catalog will remain the same. The wais.jvnc.net
location is an aliased address, so any future changes to the server will be
transparent to the user. The r2d2 server was set up as a test machine and
could not adequately handle RFB&D's expanding bibliographic records, so a
change to a larger machine was required. The database is now current with
RFB&D's holdings, and frequent updates will be possible with the new system.
**PLEASE NOTE** Many secondary gopher sites and WWW home pages throughout
the Internet community have been set up on the old r2d2 address, if you are
responsible for any of these utilities please be sure to change your files
so that users will now be properly pointed to wais.jvnc.net 4445.
If you have any questions or concerns about the RFB&D online catalog, please
drop me a note. If you have any general questions regarding RFB&D's services,
please feel free to contact our Head Quarters at in...@rfbd.org
Steve Noble, Technical Consultant
Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic
Member, Project EASI Equal Access to Software and Information
Co-Moderator AXSLIB-L Access to Libraries Listserv
Contributing Editor, ITD Information Technology and Disabilities
slno...@ulkyvm.louisville.edu
**forward**
ACCESSING THE INTERNET DATABASE
To connect to Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic online catalog,
you may use your site based gopher system to get to the wais.jvnc.net
internet address, or you may telnet to wais.jvnc.net and login as
gopher. If you wish to get to the catalog in only one step, you
may telnet directly to the database by including the port number
4445 at the end of your telnet command. When choosing either of
the gopher routes, the first menu screen you will reach will be
the JVNC gopher root menu, which provides many other useful
services besides the RFB&D catalog. From the root menu, you will
want to choose the "Publishers Online" selection, which then
takes you to the next menu level. From the Publishers Online
menu you will need to chose the Recording for the Blind
selection, which then takes you to the third menu level. From
this menu screen you have the option of choosing the telnet
session to the RFB&D Library Catalog or choosing to look at the
final menu option called "A Guide to Using RFB's Services." The
"Guide" is a actually an old copy, but is still fairly accurate.
For those who are unfamiliar with RFB&D, this guide could prove
very helpful. It is separated on the final menu level into
several documents that can be retrieved individually from the
host site. If you already have this information, you will want
to skip it and pick the telnet session to the catalog that is
available on the third level menu. Again, if you are only
interested in getting to the RFB&D catalog as quickly as possible,
you may want to simply telnet directly to "r2d2.jvnc.net 4445"
instead.
------
Subject: employment in the information age
From: ke...@ripco.com (Kelly Pierce)
Organization: Ripco Internet BBS, Chicago
[ Article crossposted from alt.comp.blind-users ]
[ Author was Kelly Pierce ]
[ Posted on Sun, 19 Nov 1995 15:51:19 GMT ]
The notion that the communications revolution has resulted in
many jobs and a real entry point into a tight labor market is in
fact false. While we are undergoing an "information revolution"
and
telecommunications, computers, and information services are
supposedly growth industries, employment opportunities for people
with disabilities in these areas has not followed. One area of
opportunity for those who are blind or print-impaired is customer
service. The combination of centralized, computer data banks
with the telephone can be the opener in the job market for many
blind persons. However, this is not happening. Below are the
results of a Labor Department investigation of telecommunications
giant MCI in a job discrimination complaint I filed last year.
MCI has several stakes in the disability community. It serves on
the advisory board of the Colorado Center for the Blind, a
National Federation of the Blind recognized training center.
Also, it is a sponsor of the Blue Ribbon Panel for
Telecommunications Policy, an effort organized by the World
Institute on Disability to identify and develop policy needs and
issues relating to people with disabilities and
telecommunications and information services. Many of the ideas
and issues raised in that process found their way into the
current telecommunications deregulation bill before Congress. We
must move beyond having an interest in accessing
telecommunications services and begin to expect that people with
disabilities can be producers of such services as well as merely
consume them.
As you will find, MCI hired four people without college degrees,
although it said such degrees were preferable. Also note that
three people either did not take or had a typing test lower than
the acceptable limit. Further, another hiree was also graded as
"unfocused" as I was, but I was not hired. You will even find
that the interviewer claims that I never requested an
accommodation, such as adapting a computer. This is despite her
writing "needs audio access" on my scoring sheet. The Labor
Department has dropped the case on a technicality: the
ineffectiveness of Windows screen readers at the time I applied
would not permit me to do the job. Of course, the Windows
question is now moot, since the job could likely be preformed
with the current and soon-to-be available crop of Windows screen
readers. An appeal is unlikely because the department generally
decides cases on practical matters rather than on fine points of
law, such as the fact that the company's use of Windows violated
its affirmative action commitments to the federal government.
While the company is off the hook on a technicality, I wonder if
MCI's interviewing and evaluation practices still maintain bias
and contempt against the abilities of people with disabilities.
P. S. Errors in the second document are most likely the result
of scanning and have not been edited.
kelly
U. S. Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs
Chicago District Office
230 South Dearborn St., Room 434
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Reply to the Attention of: DJA:AA:GC:lh
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
Mr. Kelly J. Pierce COMPLAINANT
3257 North Clifton Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60657
Mr. R. Jack Bluestein CONTRACTOR
Office of General Counsel
MCI Communication Corporation
1133 19th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
NOTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION
On November 21 and 22, 1994, the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs (OPCCP), U.S. Department of Labor conducted
an investigation of the allegations of discrimination on the
basis of disability status made in the complaint of Kelly J.
Pierce filed 14 June 1994.
Our investigation has resulted in the following findings:
1. MCI Communications Corporation (hereinafter MCI) is
nonexempt government contractor subject to the requirements
(Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended
(Section 503); and an employer of 25 or more persons subject
to Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA).
2. Kelly J. Pierce is an individual with a disability within the
meaning of Section 503 and the ADA and suffers from a visual
impairment, (Leber's optic neuropathy).
3. The complainant alleges that MCI violated its obligation
under the nondiscrimination and affirmative action provision
of its Federal contracts, and under the nondiscriminatory
provisions of the ADA by not properly considering his
qualifications in accordance with the requirements of Section
503 and failing to consider/provide reasonable accommodation
when he was rejected for employment as a Customer Service
Professional (hereinafter CSP) after an interview for the
position conducted on February 9, 1994.
4. MCI's position is that it did not select the complains:
because he did not meet the minimum qualifications for the CSP
position. Specifically, MCI asserts that the complainant lacked
prior experience and sales skills, and his oral communication was
unfocused during his interview.
2 of 6
5. The results of OFCCP's investigation are as follows:
In its position statement, MCI advised OFCCP that the
minimum qualifications for CSP position are: College degree
preferred with a minimum of 12 months customer service or sales
experience. Excellent oral and written communications skills
with a proven ability to meet sales goals. Familiarity with
PC computer and keyboard a must. Knowledge of windows
software is desirable.
A newspaper ad (Chicago Tribune dated 2/6/94) placed by MCI
states: BS/BA in Business Admin. /Liberal Arts, and some
Sales/Service experience is preferred, as are excellent
analytical, communication and troubleshooting skills.
Knowledge of computer software is desirable. Must be
flexible to work day or evening shifts.
OFCCP found that the contractors selection process for
the CSP position is as follows, and was verified by interviews
with the company officials and other applicants:
The Human Resources (HR) staff screen resumes to identify
individuals who meet the minimum education and work
experience qualification requirements. 'A member of HR
conducts a telephonic screening. During said telephonic
screening, the HR representative communicates to the
applicant the responsibilities of the CSP position, Job
location, salary and flexibility of schedules. OFCCP found
that during said telephonic screening, the HR person is asked
evaluating listening and communicative abilities of the
applicant. If the applicant remains interested and passes
this screening, the HR person schedules an interview for the
applicant.
The selection process also entails an preliminary interview
with a HR person who reviews the application form/resume for
minimum qualifications and administers a typing test. If the
first interview is successful, a second interview is
conducted, normally by a panel of two (2) Supervisors. At
the second interview an evaluation form is completed and
returned to HR. The hiring decision is mutually made by the
panel and HR. A Drug Test is also required.
Documentation on the telephonic screening (e.g. interview
questions and notes) was not available pertaining to the
complainant or any of the selected applicants. The only
record of the interview, is an Evaluation Form completed by
interviewer.
3 of 6
our investigation shows that sometime during the last week of
January 1994, the complainant telephoned MCI to inquire about
openings in the CSP position. Within a day or two, Ms. Dwendyl
Suggs, Senior Manager of Employee Relations, who was temporarily
assigned to Chicago to help process applications,
telephonically contacted the complainant. As a result of said
contact the complainant was invited for an interview. The
complainant states that he did not mention his disability during
the telephone conversation. During said screening, the
complainant states he was questioned about his work history,
typing, flexibility to work different times, and computer skills
by Ms. Suggs. Ms. Suggs claims she did not discuss educational
background and work history during the call, but only inquired
about complainant's continued interest in the job.
OFCCP's interviews with other applicants verified that they
were asked questions related to their education and work
experience during their telephonic screening.
On February 9, 1994, the complainant was interviewed at MCI's
facilities with Ms. Stephanie Goddard, Employee Relations
Specialist, who also was temporarily assigned to Chicago.
The evaluation form completed by Ms. Goddard on the complainant
shows that the complainant was evaluated or thirteen categories:
interest in MCI and position; service orientation;
persuasiveness/salesmanship; problem analysis; listening
skills; organizational skills, initiative;
interpersonal skills; ability to learn; flexibility to learn;
attention to detail; energy; and assertiveness.
The complainant's rating was "Average" for eight (8) categories,
and "Good" for five (5) categories, including two (2) pluses
I(+)" for, ability to learn and flexibility. The complainant was
given a typing test, which was scored at 40 WPM. According to
Ms. Goddard, a passing score is 30 WPM.
The evaluation form completed by Ms. Goddard indicates "No" on
recommending complainant for job offer. The narrative states
"candidate often rambled and answered questions vaguely.
Flexible with schedule, limited sales (only persuasive exp.)"
When OFCCP asked Ms. Goddard to explain her evaluation, Ms.
Goddard replied that the complainant would get off the topic and
he would not make his point. When asked to explain the statement
on limited sales (only persuasion exp.), Ms. Goddard stated that
the complainant had no sales experience.
4 of 6
Ms. Goddard states she made the decision to reject the
complainant based on his lack of "skills set" for the
requirements. When asked to explain this statement Ms. Goddard
replied that she viewed the term skill set and prior experience
as connected, and in the same light.
Our investigation shows that the complainant possesses the
established qualifications for the position. The complainant
possesses the preferred criteria, in that he has a B.A., Degree
in Journalism with a, Minor in Sociology. OFCCP found that of
the 24 total applicants who were hired, (excluding the CSP
transferee), five (5) are not degreed.
In its position statement MCI states that a "must" qualification
is familiarity with PC computer and keyboard The complainant
scored 40 WPM as demonstrated by his MCI test results, and he is
computer literate. He has also conducted research and has
written published articles; prepared releases and newsletter
stories on computer equipment, which verifies his familiarity
with computers and keyboards.
One selected applicant's (Mr. Young) typing test results is 25
WPM. The evaluation form completed by Ms. Goddard for Mr. Young
states: "limited experience with the keyboard. He was also
hesitant with shift work (flexibility." Contrary to her
treatment of the complainant, Ms. Goddard allowed this
applicant to proceed to the second interview even though her
evaluation found the candidate not meeting the minimum
expectations. In the evaluation form for this applicant, Ms.
Goddard remarks: "supervisors decision will break tie".
Another applicant (Ms. Stanek) was hired even though her typing
score was 23 WPM. During interviews with selected applicants,
OFCCP found that another applicant (Ms. Feeley) indicated that
she never took a typing test, yet, the evaluation form for her
shows 35 WPM. Another selected applicant (Ms. Brown) stated that
she also was never given a typing test.
To summarize the complainant's qualifications vis-a-vis
MCI's objective minimum standards, OFCCP found that the
complainant possesses at least two (2) plus years of work
experience related to sales/services. He possesses a B.A., in
Journalism and is computer literate. With regard to the
communications requirement, Ms. Goddard herself rated the
complainant as "average," as were the other subjective criteria
being evaluated. On the flexibility criteria, Ms. Goddard
rated complainant as Good (+).
5 of 6
Contrasting the qualifications possessed by the
complainant, OFCCP found that five (5) applicants hired
(Carroll, William, Stanek, Lackman and Cooper) had limited CSP
and/or sales experience, less than the complainant. With regard
to Ms. Goddard's remarks that complainantt often rambled and
answered questions vaguely, she made similar written
assessments ("Tends to Ramble") in the evaluation of another
applicant (Mr. Orban) who was subsequently hired. Another
applicant (MS. Burn) who had a "poor" rating for
persuasiveness/salesmanship was also subsequently hired. In
addition, Ms. Goddard remarked that another applicant (Mr.
Young) was limited with shift and keyboard, yet he too was
subsequently hired.
With respect to the issue of providing/considering needed
accommodations, in an interview with Mr. Goddard, [sic] she
claims that the complainant did not request any accommodation.
She did however verify that the complainant discussed with her
the type of adaptive equipment he would need. OFCCP's
assessment of the evaluation form on the complainant, which was
completed by Ms. Goddard, contains a written entry indicating
"Needs modification for auditory access". Complainant advised
OFCCP that he always carrys [sic] a walking cane in his
possession, which he was using during his interview with Ms.
Goddard. Also, when OFCCP inquired as to Ms. Goddard's
understanding of MCI established procedures on the issue of
accommodation, OFCCP learned that Ms. Goddard lacks any
specific understanding, as she gave very vague responses to
OFCCP, (e.g. No applicant has ever asked for an accommodation,
its done on a case-by-case basis), she could not articulate or
described any established procedures) one might follow to request
or be considered for an accommodation. Further, their, in its
position statement MCI claims that the complainant is totally
blind. This statement is not accurate.
6. Our investigation show that during the selection process
experienced by the complainant, several inconsistencies were
found in the manner in which the complainant was treated as
compared to the treatment of similarly situated non-disabled
applicants. Inconsistencies were found in the telephonic
screening, the testing results and the exceptions made to non-
disabled applicants vis-a-vis the established qualification
requirements. OFCCP finds that MCI failed to properly
consider the qualification of the complainant in-line with the
commitments outlined in its Affirmative Action Program for
Individuals with Disabilities, and in accordance with the
requirements at 41 CFR 60-741.6 (b). OFCCP further finds that
MCI failed to provide/condiser reasonable accommodations) to
a known individual with a disability in-line with the
commitments outlined in its Affirmative Action Program for
Individuals with Disabilities, and in accordance with the
requirements of 41 CFR 60-741.6(d).
6 of 6
7. The actions described above in paragraph 6 violated MCI's
obligations under the regulations at: 41 CFR 60-741.6. (b).
MCI has failed to review its personnel processes to determine
whether present procedures assure careful, thorough and
systematic consideration of the job qualifications of known
Disabled applicants. In addition, MCI has violated 41 CFR 60-
741.6(d) by failing to provide/consider reasonable
accommodations to the physical limitations of a disabled
applicant. MCI has not provided a legitimate
nondiscriminatory rationale (e.g. business necessity or
financial cost and expense) for its failure.
In accordance with the regulations implementing Section 503, 41
CFR 60-741.26(g)(2) the Department now invites MCI to join with
it to resolve this matter through conciliation by informal
means. Mr. Gene Connelly, Compliance Officer from this office
will be in contact with MCI by February 15, 1995 to begin the
conciliation process.
On behalf of the United States Department of Labor
_____________________________________
Signature Date
DANIEL J. ARAIZA
District Director
Department of Labor
SEP 2 1 1995
CERTIFIED MAIL
Employment Standards Ad@ation
Office of Federal Contract
compliance Programs
Chicago District office
230 South Dearborn Street
Room 434
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Reply to the Attention of: DJA:RW:GC:fap
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Kelly J. Pierce
3257 N. Clifton Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60657
Re: Complaint #E940133
Dear Mr. Pierce:
On February 1, 1995, we issued a Notice of
Results of Investigation, which set forth the findings
resulting from our investigation of your complaint
against MCI Corporation, which was investigated under both
Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
(Section 503) and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (ADA). In that Notice, we concluded that MCI
discriminated against you based on your disability
status. Subsequent to issuance of that Notice, MCI
provided additional information relative to the circumstances
surrounding its decision not to select you for the Customer
Service Position. For the reasons stated in the
attached revised Notice of Results of Investigation,
we have concluded that there is insufficient
evidence that MCI violated its obligations under Section 503
or the ADA.
To pursue your complaint further, you may request
that the Director, OFCCP, reconsider our determination.
Such a request should be based on reasonable cause, and
should include written documentation (for example, signed
statements of co-workers or supervisors) which would
substantially change our findings in this case. Your
request for reconsideration must be made within ' 30 calendar
days of the date you receive this letter, and should be sent to:
Director, OFCCP
U.S. Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
-2-
If you decide not to request reconsideration, or if OFCCP does
not hear from you within 30 calendar days of the date you
receive this letter, OFCCP will close your complaint and issue
you a "Notice of Right-to-Sue" under the ADA. That Notice will
permit you to file a private law suit against the employer
under Title I of the ADA in U.S. District Court.
Note that if you request reconsideration you do not lose your
above referenced right-to-sue under the ADA. OFCCP will issue
you one "Notice of Right-to-Sue," either (1) at any
point in the reconsideration process, upon your written
request to the Director at the above address; or (2)
immediately upon completing that process, if the Director
upholds the finding of "No Violation". Your request of a
Notice of Right-to-Sue prior to our completion of the
reconsideration process may, subject to our discretion, result
in the cessation of your rights under Section 503.
Sincerely,
DA
Di
Mr. Kelly J. Pierce COMPLAINANT
32r.-7 North Clifton Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60657
Mr. H. Jack Bluestein CONTRACTOR
Office of General Counsel
MCI Communication Corporation
1133 19th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
REVISED NOTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION
On November 21 and 22, 1994, the Office of Federal
Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCPI), U.S. Department of
Labor conducted an investigation of the allegations of
discrimination on the basis of disability status made in the
complaint of K@-lll,- 3-. Pierce filed on June 15, 1994.
Our investigation has resulted in the following findings:
1. MCI Communications Corporation (hereinafter MCI)
is a nonexempt government contractor subject to the
requirements of Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, as amended, (Section 503); and an employer of
25 or more persons subject to Title I ,)f the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).
2. Kelly J. Pierce is an individual with a disability
within the meaning of Section 503 and the ADA and
suffers from a vision impairment, (Leber's optic
neuropathy).
3. The complainant alleges that MCI violated its
obligations under the nondiscrimination and affirmative
action provisions of its Federal contracts, and under
the nondiscrimination provisions of the ADA by not
properly considering his qualifications in accordance
with the requirements of Section 503 and failing to
consider/provide reasonable accommodations when he was
rejected for employment as a Customer Service
Professional (hereinafter CSP) after an interview for
this position conducted on February 9, 1994.
4, MCI's position, as set forth during the investigation, is
that it did not select the Complainant because he did not
meet the minimum qualifications for the CSP position.
Specifically, MCI asserts that the Complainant lacked
prior experience and sales skills, and his or@l -
communication was unfocused during his interview,
-2 -
On February I., 199@@, N-FCC@O Lssued a Notification of
Results of investigation (NORI , f iinding that Mr. Pierce
was a victim of discrimination due to the fact that
the Contractor failed to properly consider his
qualifications vis-a-vis his disability.
On April 21, 1995 MCI responded to the NORI. In that
response MCI asserts that at '.-he time of the
Complainant's application .-or the CSP position,
adaptive equipment necessary to accommodate his
disability was not available (i.e, , equipment which
would allow the Complainant to perform the computer
tasks associated with the position in a "Windows"
environment). In view of this, MCI contends that
the Complainant was not a "qualified" individual with a
disability.
After consultation with the Solicitor of Labor,
further investigation by OFCCP, which included interviews
with two ('Z') experts in the field of adaptive
equipment, verified the fact that there was no speech
program capable of reading Window - environment
programs at the time of the Complainant's
application, In view of this, the Complainant would not
have been able to perform all necessary duties
associated with the ,--SP position and therefore,
could not be considered a qualified individual with
a disability.
Based on +.,he findings of this investigation, there was
insufficient evidence that the Contractor has violated its
obligations under the nondiscrimination and affirmative
action provisions of Section 503 or under the
nondiscrimination provisions of the ADA. Therefore, the
Department's processing of this complaint is concluded. If
you wish to pursue this complaint further, your options
for doing so are described in the cover letter forwarding this
Notice.
For the United States Department of Labor:
DANIEL IJ. -@AZTA DATE
District Dll'r tor
--
--
------
Subject: replacement for Oscar software
From: pa...@squid.tram.com (Patt Bromberger)
We've been having some difficulty with getting replacement disks for
Oscar - the software that runs our HP II scanner; the company,
Telesensory, I believe, has a protection scheme on the software so one
only gets a few installations.
Some of our users are careless, some are not excactly computer
literate; most make mistakes out of ignorance rather than malice so
files get removed regularly and Oscar must be reinstalled.
Our scanner has been down for two weeks already and this happens right
before midterm examinations and during midterm examinations so it is
not convenient. The disks were returned to the company via FedEx and
they still have not arrived for re-installation.
If you can recommend another company, another software product that
works as good or better than Oscar with an HP II scanner, please
advise.
Thank you for any advice you can offer.
Patt Bromberger, President, S.O.F.E.D. U.P. - pa...@its.brooklyn.cuny.edu
Student Organization for Every Disability United in Progress @
Brooklyn College, 1303 James Hall, 2900 Bedford Ave. Brooklyn, NY 11235
718-252-9230 - pa...@squid.tram.com
A truth that's told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent.
- William Blake
*
------
******
End of Issue # 1184 of the Blind News Digest
******