Terminated on grounds of amputation

[manni-yunk]

You have to be kidding me....I dont care if it was the last sentence...or the first. He disclosed it, they knew it...and they hired him.

It would be interesting to hear what parts of the job they are saying he could not operate.....

I was raised by a father with a handicap (polio as a child), so I have spent a LOT of time around people with physical disabilities...and Ive spent years being impressed with people's abilities to find ways to get things done even with a handicap.....sometimes better than able bodied persons. There was nothing that could stop my dad from doing what he wanted to do, physically.....

Again - the details of what their claims are regarding inability to perform should be very telling...but in the meantime, I can tell you that I will not spend a nickel at this place....ever....based on this, unless specific substantiation is provided, which of course is highly unlikely...

 

[muzzon]

You have to be kidding me....I dont care if it was the last sentence...or the first. He disclosed it, they knew it...and they hired him.

...I know...that's literally exactly what I was pointing out as well.

 

[Bubblesong]

The court in St. Kitts is going to ask if the job could have been done by a local citizen, and may not be as sympathetic to an American guest worker. Also starting a lawsuit costs money. Plus losing a lawsuit often means paying the other side's lawyer.
The court of "public opinion" can cost them, not cost him, but will only be effective if he outlined his case with more details. Right now it appears they gave him two weeks to prove he could do the job and provide a great return on their money.

 

[Colliam7]

If someone is terminated from employment simply because they have a physical limitation that does not in any way affect their ability to perform the duties of the job for which they were hired, that is WRONG, morally and, in all probability, legally.

But, some of the reaction in this thread to the initial post seems to be a bit extreme. NO information is provided about what position the OP was hired into. No information is provided by the OP, beyond a copy of a letter - which includes the statement, 'You indicated that you were able notwithstanding to operate with the disability. That turned out to not be so.' - that gives us even a clue as to what the nature and performance requirements of the position were. We have no knowledge of what the OP was expected to do and how well they were able, or not, to do what was expected.

The resort is under no obligation to provide SB readers with 'specific substantiation'. That burden would seem to be on the OP, since they elected to bring this to the public attention of SB users.

He disclosed it, they knew it...and they hired him.

And, a similar statement could probably be made: 'They disclosed what the performance requirements of the position were. He knew it, and he took the position.' In fact, the letter evens notes that the OP indicated that he was 'able to operate with the disability'. That suggests that both parties were aware of the expectations.

I am not taking the resort's 'side'. Nor, am I taking the OP's 'side'. I simply have no information upon which to base any reasonable assessment of the circumstances of his termination of employment. I am surprised that some posters in this thread seem to have extracted so much detailed information regarding egregious behavior on the part of the resort, from the initial post.

Over the years I have worked closely with many individuals with a variety of physical, and cognitive, limitations - differently abled individuals. I have found them in virtually all cases to exhibit remarkable adaptability and resilience. In my academic career, I used Oliver Sachs' book, 'An Anthropologist on Mars', as a teaching tool, to illustrate how the presence of certain diseases and 'disorders' might allow allow an individual to develop remarkable and unique skills and abilities.

But, I would like to know a lot more about the details of the OP's situation, before concluding that the resort is the embodiment of evil and discrimination, and that the OP is the victim of employer prejudice and narrow-minded views of individuals with physical limitations.

 

[manni-yunk]

The resort is under no obligation to provide SB readers with 'specific substantiation'.
.

Not necessarily true.If they want to continue to operate a business, they will provide what the customers ask for, or they will not exist. My sole and exclusive remedy for being upset at this situation...along with many others...is to choose to not spend money there.....because...Clearly, I am under no obligation to spend my money there. That being said, as they have no specific legal obligation to provide substantiation, as a business it will be in their best interest to provide it or lose sales...

Its really that simple. There are two sides to every story - and at this point with the limited amount of info that we have, and the facts of the letter....I will exercise my sole remedy and choose to not spend money there....There are a lot of options in dive travel so it doesn't take much to eliminate someone from contention.

 

[C Dub]

The letter clearly states that he said he could do the job, but it turns out he could NOT. Being disabled doesn't mean you are immune to having to be able to do the job you were hired for.

 

[Colliam7]

Not necessarily true.If they want to continue to operate a business, they will provide what the customers ask for, or they will not exist.

Actually, this is not a reasonable statement. What is being brought up in the thread appears to be a personnel matter, and responsible businesses generally refrain from public discussion of personnel matters.

I am a bit surprised that you are willing take the position, 'I will not spend a nickel at this place....ever....based on this', exclusively on the basis of what has been posted in the thread. It is certainly your right to do so, no doubt about it. But, perhaps you have unique access to a lot more detail about this specific situation, or this particular resort, than what has been posted here.

I even went back and re-read the OP, thinking I missed something. I don't think I did. Yes, he says he worked 12 hours a day without issues, but was terminated. OK, that doesn't sound good. But, there are always two sides, as you even mentioned, and I don';t know enough about what the 'work' was, or what he was told about his performance - beyond the letter.

That is just me. Others are free to react as they choose, of course.

 

[BRT]

Do you really think the employer cares how many hands he has if he can do the job? He was dismissed because he couldn't do the job.

 

[Chip Elliott]

There is not enough information to form a truly wise decision...yet. Also, I think it poses some difficulty to apply USA law to a Canadian citizen who was possibly discriminated against in a 3rd country.

 

[emoreira]

Tripadvisor is a good source of opinions related to a place and those opinions are, the most of the times, completely objective, as many people will never return.
Looking the opinions in this particular case, they are not good.
If I ever visit St. Kitts, I would search in Tripadvisor for opinions on the target place and, with the opinions of that particular hotel, would discard from the start, without knowing of this particular problem.
A complete different approach would be if a job offer is under consideration, though I would be aware if the place has bad opinions.