Job Applicant
primergray wrote:Does Trump have an 'out' if he says he 'fired' her because she frightened the other team members? he seemed to make a point of asking every single one if she felt afraid.
Also, he didn't really fire Stacie J. He eliminated a game show contestant.
Title I of the ADA applies to private employers. Trump is a private employer. Stacie J. may reasonably argue that she was a job applicant. All the "candidates" are interviewing (and competing against each other) for the real-life position as Trump's apprentice (employee) and a 6-figure salary. Each week, one of the job applicants is eliminated. No matter how the show is characterized (game show, reality t.v., etc.), Trump eventually HIRES one of the job applicants.
"The ADA prohibits discrimination in all employment practices, including
job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.
It applies to recruitment, advertising, tenure, layoff, leave, fringe benefits,
and all other employment-related activities."
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/q%26aeng02.htm
"An employer is free to select the most qualified applicant available and to make decisions based on reasons
unrelated to a disability."
The term "disability" is defined to protect individuals who are regarded as as disabled (physically or mentally impaired) even if they are not disabled. Even though Stacie J. might not have a mental impairment, it is apparent that she was regarded as having one. Many of the women on Stacie's team even suggested a diagnosis. However, the ADA protects qualified individuals from being denied employment because an employer fears "negative reactions" of customers
or co-workers.
Stacie J. was not waving a knife. She was playing with an eight-ball. The fact that members on her team had a negative reaction to her behavior does not mean she was or is a direct threat to their safety. Even though her team members expressed "fear" of Stacie J., this does not save Trump's butt. Their subjective statements concerning Stacie's mental health made during a boardroom witch-hunt wherein they were all looking for a scapegoat to save themselves from getting fired makes their expressions of "fear" far less than credible.
Rather than focusing on whether Stacie J. was "crazy" and labeling her as mentally impaired or unstable, they should have focused on task performance. In that regard, Stacie J. was in charge of getting the toothpaste to the task event. She failed to bring an appropriate vehicle for transportation and arrived at the warehouse three minutes before it closed. Nevertheless, the toothpaste did make it to the event. The team lost because they went over budget. Stacie was not responsible for the loss, but she was nevertheless eliminated for improper purposes.
Stacie J. may have a claim against Trump, et al., for a violation(s) of Title I of the ADA. (Discrimination in job application procedures/recruitment & violation of confidentiality provisions.) She was labeled as a "crazy" person with several possible mental impairments (chemical imbalance, schizophrenia, etc.) on national television and must now suffer slings and arrows that label will bring upon her for the rest of her life.
If Stacie J. brings a lawsuit, it is possible for her to succeed. Even if she signed a contract that contains a provision that appears to absolve Trump, et al., from liability for civil torts, the contract provision may be held unconscionable and unenforceable under the circumstances. There are some individual rights or protections that cannot be waived. If it were permissible for people to waive their protections under the ADA, then all employers could conceivably require job applicants to waive their rights under the ADA and the law would be rendered meaningless.
It will be interesting to see if Stacie J. brings a lawsuit.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace