UNIT II: CASE STUDY 1

Unit II: Case Study

Jessica James

Columbia Southern University

UNIT II: CASE STUDY 2

Discrimination is simply defined as, “the act of making or perceiving a difference,”

(discrimination, n.d.); however, this is a term that can be applied to hundreds of situations.

Discrimination in the workforce is not a new concept, it is a battle that has been fought for

several years, and is not limited to a specific industry or category of employees. Discrimination

can be based on age, race, ethnicity, religious belief, disability, and the list goes on.

In the case of the United States of America v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit

Authority (WMATA), a potential employee was offered a position with the WMATA. During

the post-offer, pre-employment physical the employee was declared as disabled resulting from

his epilepsy condition. Sequentially, the WMATA withdrew their offer for the position and the

employee was eliminated from the selection pool. The decision to recant the job offer violated

Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and required revisions to the WMATA

hiring process to prevent any future violations. At the time of the infraction, the WMATA

selection criteria neither asked or required the employee to disclose any known disabilities.

There was a small list of conditions within the application for the employee to choose from if

they were currently under treatment, epilepsy was not included on that list (Phillips, 2017).

Throughout the application process, the applicant is only asked if they have a condition or any

limitations that will hinder their work performance, and the applicant’s condition was carefully

managed and posed no threat to his abilities.

There was no information given as to how WMATA chose their perspective employees;

however, from the orders given by the Consent Decree in March of 2017, their process was in

need for a major overhaul. Stewart & Brown (2015) explain in chapter 6 that fairness is an

essential characteristic in the selection process. It was obvious that the applicant tested well

enough to receive the job offer; however, the WMATA was unfair to the employee by recanting
UNIT II: CASE STUDY 3

their offer upon learning about his medical condition. The ADA requires employers to make

reasonable accommodations for any employees that have a disability, rather than terminating

them or withdrawing any opportunities, (USA v. WMATA, 2017). The case is a clear example of

how an employee with a disability can be discriminated against and why it is illegal and

unethical to do so. From the information given, the employee had no wrong doings in this case, it

was never established that he withheld information or lied on his application. There could be

debate as to whether his condition disqualified his application from the beginning. However,

demands from the Consent Decree regarding the mandatory revisions to the WMATA selection

process clearly indicate that the necessary questions were not asked to prevent this situation.

Another point to address is the recanting of the employment offer rather than making the

required accommodations for the employee. That action alone also violates Title I of the ADA

and was clearly addressed within the Consent Decree as well. “The dialogue obligation is

fulfilled when WMATA discloses to an applicant the particular disability and the particular

essential job function that gives rise to WMATA’s concern, and the applicant has a fair

opportunity to respond to that concern with further explanation of the disability and/or a request

for reasonable accommodation of that disability,” (USA v. WMATA, 2017). This case is a

precise example of discrimination by an employer, and why organizations such as the ADA

exist, and provide strong and obdurate protection for their victims.

Prevention and absolution were the two main objectives throughout this case. The

WMATA HR Department and others in charge unwilling or otherwise chose to not keep the

selection process within the guidelines of the ADA and paid the price for it. The decree ordered

the HR Department to revise their selection process and provide ADA training to all employees

within six months. The HR Department was also responsible for obtaining an adequate trainer
UNIT II: CASE STUDY 4

and qualified medical examiners for all post-offer pre-employment requirements. The US

Attorney’s office also took it one step further by giving the WMATA ninety days to draft a new

employment policy to be approved by the United States. Upon approval, the HR Department will

have ten days to integrate the new policies into the manuals, make the new policies available on

the internet, distribute the new policies to all supervisors and administrators, and obtain signed

acknowledgement from each employee that has received the new policies. The HR Department

will also be required to submit a report every six month that details all training, lawsuits,

complaints, or alleged grievance with WMATA. The report is also to include all applicant

information, whether they were hired or disqualified, and the reasoning behind those that

disqualified. The six-month reports are to continue until two years after the decree, ending in

March 2019. The HR Department will have its work cut out for the next few years, and all

because of a single perspective employee’s epileptic condition.

Discrimination is still a daily battle for some, and there is no clear end in sight as to when

discrimination will be a thing of the past. People should walk a fine line between discrimination

and business necessity, especially the HR management team. The case of the United States of

America v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority is a prime example as to how any

act of discrimination can be costly and time consuming. Channing Phillips concludes his article

with a quote that sums up this case perfectly, “The discriminatory conduct in this case deprived a

qualified candidate of a job opportunity and caused him economic and emotional stress. This

case shows there will be consequences for employers who fail to comply with the Americans

with Disabilities Act. We are pleased that WMATA recognizes the need for new policies and

will compensate the job candidate," (2017). Sadly, discrimination is alive and well, but by
UNIT II: CASE STUDY 5

educating people and preparing them for possible situations, discrimination can die off one

person at a time.
UNIT II: CASE STUDY 6

Reference

Discrimination. (n.d.). Retrieved September 12, 2017, from https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/discrimination
Phillips, C., (2017). Justice department reaches agreement with washington metropolitan area
transit authority to resolve disability discrimination complaint. Lanham: Federal
Information & News Dispatch, Inc. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-
com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/docview/1873063745?accountid=33337
Stewart, G. L., & Brown, K. G. (2015). Human resource management: Linking strategy to
practice (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wile
United States v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Federal Information &News
Dispatch, Inc (United States District Court of Washington, D.C. March 06, 2017), DOJ
Documents 17-0096 (ABJ).