High school diploma requirement might violate the law - EEOC
Companies who require high school diplomas for employment may be violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Employers are facing more uncertainty in the wake of a letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission warning them that requiring a high school diploma from a job applicant might violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The development also has some wondering whether the agency's advice will result in an educational backlash by creating less of an incentive for some high school students to graduate.
The "informal discussion letter" from the EEOC said an employer's requirement of a high school diploma, long a standard criterion for screening potential employees, must be "job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity." The letter was posted on the commission's website on Dec. 2.
Employers could run afoul of the ADA if their requirement of a high school diploma " 'screens out' an individual who is unable to graduate because of a learning disability that meets the ADA's definition of 'disability,' " the EEOC explained.
The commission's advice, which does not carry the force of law, is raising alarms among employment-law professionals, who say it could carry far-reaching implications for businesses.
There is no such thing as "unable to graduate because of a learning disability." The mainstreaming of these kids presupposes that they are capable of understanding and completing the required curriculum in order to graduate. If they aren't, they shouldn't be in the same school as those who can. If some kids with an EEOC approved "disability" graduate, why should other kids with the same "disability" be allowed to skate while forcing companies to hire them despite their deficiencies as workers?
As usual, it makes no sense. It's just the EEOC throwing its weight around addressing a non-problem and proposing a totally unworkable solution. One might almost think they are in the business of making life difficult for employers.
In that assumption, you would be correct