[Rose76]

I was recently invited into a program funded by the federal government to help people with barriers to employment find jobs. For a few years, now, I've been getting treatment for recurrent major depression. I disclosed that to the program, as they indicated I was required to do.

Today, I was contacted by the program and told that I could not participate at this time. They said they thought I was too likely to fail because of my issues with depression. My sense is that something is wrong with this picture. I think I am being discriminated against on the basis of having a mental health diagnosis.

I can understand an employer being reticent to hire someone who is depressed. But this program was not considering "hiring" me. They are a non-profit organization who get federal funds to provide training. The purpose of the program is specifically to help individuals who do have an impediment to success in the job market. So to tell me that I'm not wanted because I might not succeed seems to defeat the whole point of the program.

Another aspect of this troubles me. After being told I was invited into the program, I was asked to give highly detailed information about my diagnosis and the way in which it has disabled me. (I get SSDI, and the program specifically helps people with disabilities. They often get cllients who are recipients of SSDI.) I gave a great deal of extremely personal information. (Yes, that was very naiive of me.) I would never have given that information, if I had not believed that I was accepted into the program. I feel like my privacy has been horribly violated. I would never have disclosed so much about myself, if I had thought that I was only being considered for the program tentatively.

This feels so awful. I hope someone here at PC can understand. I feel like such a fool to have trusted these people. That hurts worse than not getting into the program.

[Turtleboy]

oh (((((rose))))) that is horrid, i cant understand why they would refuse you when you fit the criteria perfectly. im so sorry this happened to you

[winter4me]

I am so sorry, especially since I think you may be right. (I know what it is like to reveal oneself and watch a sudden change in the perception of another/others...once in a while, thank goodness, a friend is found...((((hugs)))). Know that you are deserving of help and, this could be very hard and only you know if it is worth it, you have a right to request a review and to talk to those who made this decision to ask for more specific information.
Take care, let us know how it goes.

[patches4.0]

Hi

I run into this problem all the time as I work in the mental health field. Call the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act in your city. Just Google the ADA coordinator for wherever you live. They should be able to help you fight back, don't take this lying down.

James

Rose, I've worked with several non-profits in the last few years. Sometimes I volunteer to write software for them. But a lot of their money depends on the successes of the participants in the program. If they believe a person will not successfully complete their programs, they won't take them, as it will effect the statistics that they have to provide to the government. And if they percentages don't match up to what they said they would do, then they can lose funding.

[Rose76]

Thank you, jeffro. You have put your finger right on it. They were very emphatic that they did not want to take in candidates who might not success because, exactly as you explained above, they do get penalized in terms of funding, if candidates fail. They were very clear that they would not wait around for potential participants who were slow on getting all the paperwork in order. This, they said, would be an indication that those participants would not put forth the needed effort to succeed.

I complied thoroughly and promptly with everything asked of me. There was no lack of effort/compliance on my part.

I do understand they are trying to make their stats come out well. However, I would think that there are limits to what they can ethically do to try and insure that. Obviously, they think they are within those limits. I don't think they are.

What if my disability were a low IQ? Does that leave them free to say, "Well, we are interested in trying to place and train people who have cognitive deficits, but we're not going to work with you, if you strike us as being a little too stupid." Hey - maybe that is okay for them to do. Maybe that's a good analogy. Maybe, I'm all wrong.

I agree w/ you Rose. It's very morally wrong, but that's non-profits have lots of leeway in who they decide to help, and who they don't. I volunteered for one that helped people coming out of prison. We always were writing grant applications it felt like, but they would specifically tell us who we could and couldn't help. Our director thought that was a crock, and turned down lots of money so we can help more people. Unfortunately it's the nature of the beast.

[Rose76]

I think they should have disclosed at the get-go that they would possibly exclude someone, based on their impression that the person might not be a good risk.

They explained the criteria for getting into the program. They explained the types of infraction of rules that could get a person thrown out. They never explained that they also had the discretion to just say, "No, we don't want you. That is just our gut feeling."

I am not sure that they do legally have quite that amount of freedom in how they spend money from the government. That would allow them to discriminate against anyone at all, for any reason at all.

This was probably a good lesson in life for me to learn. Their profession of wanting to help me was not sincere. They are recruiting clients to keep funds flowing to their organization. I think I was very naiive. It's awful to still be as dumb as I am this late in life.

The organization that did this to me is Goodwill Industries. I've been reading up on them. (There is a lot of unflattering stuff about them on the Internet.) Apparently, they do have an agenda that is not totally about doing good helping people with disabilities. That's probably to be expected of any human enterprise.

[IndieVisible]

I do not feel people should be forced to reveal the medical records or even what meds they are on. People are already subjected to enough screening with background checks and drug tests. I hate when I come across a document I need to fill out that asks to list what meds I'm on and why. Seriously, I feel like that is an invasion of my privacy. If I fail to meet the requirements of the job for any reason I can be dismissed at any time. If I meet the qualifications and pass their screening I should be able to have an opportunity to work. If I don't work out, then dismiss me.

[Rose76]

Thank you, IndieVisible. It is a terrible invasion of a person's privacy to be led to reveal the most personal of information on the premise that an agency is offering help and support. Then to have that offer of support rescinded . . . That is an awful betrayal.

I agree with you about what should be used to judge someone's ability to perform. It should not be judged based on rooting around (like a fishing expedition) in someone's medical history.

[splitimage]

Hi Rose,

I'm so sorry that you experienced this. And you're probably right, you probably were discriminated against.

I had a really bad experience on a job at a major hospital, where I was required on the occupational health form to list all meds I was on. When I questioned the necessity of this, they said it was in case of I was ever in a medical emergency at work. I was being accommodated with flex time so I could attend aftercare at my rehab, which was something I'd negotiated during the hiring process without disclosing why. But about 3 weeks after I'd been on the job, my manager wanted to "formalize" my arrangement with occ health. They told him everything. Suddenly it was like I had 3 heads, some people in the department wouldn't even talk to me, and a week later I was let go as being a "poor fit" Unfortunately it was during the probationary period when they can just let you go for no cause. I talked to a couple of HR types afterward and they said I had a good case for a discrimination case, but I chose not to pursue it, because there was no way I wanted my name dragged through the papers as I do have a desire to work in this town again.

splitimage

[Rose76]

Thank you, splitimage, for sharing your experience. That is very relevant to what I am so angry about. I think that is a perfect example. To be honest, it sounds worse than what I went through. Despite all the laws protecting privacy and protecting against discrimination, organizations (private, public, and non-profit) have so much power to do as they wish. It is so wrong. I really mean it . . . that your example makes this even clearer than mine. It is so wrong. Then you have to fear fighting it because the outcome could be even worse for you. It is so, so wrong.

[NWgirl2013]

I guess I am just So afraid of this kind of discrimination that I would never reveal too much by choice.
When I was volunteering at a certain hospital where I also have my PCM, they had full access to my records. It terrified me & I found myself downplaying the major depression diagnosis, using words like "situational" (my own word) to say it is resolved, so, no worries. If I hadn't been over the top sincere & happy they were going to let me go. I had to convince them I was "great!"
I guess they were afraid of what a depressed person will do? (go postal?) I dunno. But it felt bad.
I am capable of experiencing depression and still do good deeds and not burden anyone with my personal stuff. I have this skill down! SHEESH!

[IndieVisible]

Why do they not subject doctors to the same threshold they place on every one else? Will any one here try to tell me doctors never have depression or any form or mental illness and never take meds? It will always be the pions that get placed on higher scrutiny.

[Rose76]

NWgirl2013. Congratulations on figuring out some real important stuff. You have wisely protected yourself effectively. I hope I wise up after this.

[eskielover]

It's frustrating because transparency is important in therapy in order to get the help we need.....whilc transparency can hurt us in places we think it's necessary to get the help since they specified that it was to help people with disabilities.....guess they should have definied what kind of disability they determined they were willing to help (physical vs mental)....but then they would not be able to be that transparent on their own without their discrimination becoming obvious & someone taking action against them.

On one hand, I think I might be desiring to take some action against them for that discrimination....or at least make it obvious to someone who might have something to say about it....especially since their discrimination is specifically based on their fear of loosing funding if they try to help certain disabilities.....wonder if the government would fund them if they knew that fact????

I would definitely be feeling hurt also in your place....especially since your loss of your last job had nothing to do with your disability if I remember correctly.

I remember going through the skills assessment thing that goes along with disability....trying to get people back into the work force....having been an engineer.....no one else in that kind of testing came from the educated background I came from....& all they truly wanted to place people into were factory assembly positions which would have driven me beyond crazy & that testing drove my anxiety level beyond what I could handle....however, the testing on the physics concepts no one had tested higher...lol.....but they weren't willing to pay for my going back to college to get retrained in a field that would not have been equivalent to my engineering but at least something more appropriate than assembly line work when I was focusing on interior design........anyway, glad I didn't bother with any of that because my mother ended up dying of cancer & I went through a horrible trauma with that & couldn't have finished the certificate program anyway.....but I did find it frustrating that those programs are now capable of dealing with the highly educated in this country either.

Life goes on & when one door closes, something else seems to open some time in the future.....just need a lot of patience is what I have found & sometimes it's hard to know how we should deal with things we feel are soooooo very discriminatory & WRONG.

[Rose76]

Thank you, eskielover. What you say about the issue of transparency in this whole scenario is very apt.

I am very grateful to all of you, above, for these thoughtful responses. I can't tell you how you have filled a void in providing me with some sense of support.

I don't know that I will do anything much about this. I feel that the non-profit organization has so much power, and I have so little.

since they specified that it was to help people with disabilities.....guess they should have definied what kind of disability they determined they were willing to help (physical vs mental)....but then they would not be able to be that transparent on their own without their discrimination becoming obvious & someone taking action against them.

by eskielover

I think there was something sneaky and not above board about this situation. Thank you, eskielover, for seeing that also. (My impression is that you do think that they are being less than transparent.)

[ultramar]

I'm amazed that they rejected you for 'depression' -that has to be one of the most common issues people in this country have to contend with --I never thought of it as carrying such stigma!

I certainly don't think anyone has a right to be asking personal mental health information from any prospective employee -it actually doesn't sound legal -it's a very strange process that you've described. Did you initially say that you suffered from depression, and then they asked you for details?

I don't know if this correlates, but I recently applied for and was granted Intermittent Leave of Absence at work, which basically allows me time off for appointments and treatment based on my diagnoses (with medical information from my providers). I work in healthcare, so it's a bit unique in this way, but my medical/mental health information goes to HR and Occupational Health, they make their determination, but no personal information is passed on to my boss -she just knows I'm allowed some schedule flexibility based on medical issues (doesn't even mention mental health). My medical information is protected by law. I also used to interview people for positions at the hospital where I work --we weren't allowed to ask any questions about a prospective employee's health (medical or mental health) -again, I think it's illegal.

I suppose they could claim that you freely gave that information, but again, my understanding has been that you can't even ask about it. Maybe it's okay because it was considered particularly relevant to this position? --I don't know. Sorry this happened.

[IndieVisible]

I work for a hospital too, here's how they get around it, do you have a mandatory physical exam over there once a year? Basically all they do is check your vitals and you fill out a form that asks to list any meds your on.

This is one reason I am so reluctant to be too forth coming in my psych exam, it will be thru the same hosp I work at!

[Rose76]

ultramar This was a training program specifically for persons who face a low chance of succeeding in the workplace without supportive help. They said they needed to know explicit details about the nature of my mental health diagnosis, in order to know how to best support my success in the program. I really appreciate you saying that this all sounds like "a very strange process." The more I think about it, the more it seems that way to me.

When I was first contacted by this organization, the person who called asked about my circumstances. She asked if I had a disabillity. I answered, "Yes." She then said, "Can you tell me about it?" That seemed a bit strange to me. I responded that I didn't what to give a lot of personal information out to someone callling me on the phone whom I had never met. (This was a program I applied for over 2 years ago. I never heard anything for 2 years. So I was skeptical about how interested they really were to take me on as a client. I should have stuck with that skepticism.)

At the orientation, they asked that I bring them a note from a doctor. I asked if this was really necessary, since I was a recipient of SSDI. The answer was, "No." One of the presenters of the orientation said it was only needed that they make a copy of my award letter from Social Security.

Then, at the meeting with my assigned coordinator, the "fishing around" started again. I had provided them my psych diagnosis and med list in writing. The coordinator asked for a note from my doctor. The coordinator had read a lot of my intake info, so it seemed strange that this fishing continued. I mean, I wondered what more they wanted to know? It was a long interview that seemed to involve a lot of fishing. I even said that the Social Security Administration does not grant SSDI lightly and that they had deemed me as having a disability.

I don't think all this repeated querying is exactly legal. Maybe it falls in that grey zone between perfectly legal and illegal.

My understanding is that it is appropriate to focus on what sort of "reasonable accommodation" will the participant/employee need. To clarify that, I said that it always takes me longer to become oriented to a new work situation than it does most people. I said that I have anxiety that is very tough, until I have become acclimated to a new work environment. The interviewer asked, "Do you become overwhelmed?" I said that I would not say the problem was quite that bad." I tend to be slow at my work when it is new to me.

I said that I thought that lack of computer literacy was a big impediment to me limiting job opportunities. We were discussing me being placed in a position where I would be answering phones and making copies of things. That is way less demanding that the professional jobs I've done in the past.

Then the interviewer asked if I was interested in "administrative" work or "teaching." That seemed a bit ambitious for me, at this stage of the game, and I said that I did not think I had the confidence for that level of responsibility, but that, with some success under my belt doing something less challenging, that it might be a future possibility.

The interviewer did not make this decision. Her supervisor did. When I said that I understood that the program did help people with very serious impediments to getting back in the work place, the supervisor said that they could not discuss personal information about other participants. Now, to me that was just a red herring. I was not the one trying to violate anyone's privacy - kind of ironic for them to take that tack. It got to be just another instance of fishing around for something.

I think their approach to recruiting participants is deplorable.

[mimi2112]

Rose76,
I am so sorry and truly empathize. My story is similar to yours, in a way.

I tried getting a very simple job through Goodwill. I was very surprised at the way I was treated. I have lots of experience and would be a good attribute.

My issue with them is that they are well known generally for being an organization that helps those w/ disabilities.

They had a job posting at my local job service for a donations sorter--a perfect way for me to get back into the work force.

The application process was all online. I'd tried to apply for the same position last year at x-mas time and had trouble with their website for applying. I had this confirmed by the employees at the store who said that the application website was difficult at times.

This time around I really struggled again with the application process. I called the supervisor, said I was having difficulties and that I'd be an asset for them. I asked if I could walk in with a generic application and my resume in person. I was told the only way I could apply was online.

So what about people who have no computers, no computer skills, or are like me and have a lot of trouble w/ computers from lack of formal training?

What about disabled people with severe cognitive impairments that keep them from applying online?

Is this really Goodwill industries? If so, do I want to work for them anyway?

I really thought that they would be the answer for me because of my mental health history, the fact I need to begin working again and that they advertise so much about helping people with disabilities.

I wish you luck Rose76 in pursuing a different avenue. I know something will come along for you.

[Rose76]

Thank you, mimi, for your story. Their insistence on an on-line application sounds a little fishy to me. What I am coming to suspect is that their agenda can have a lot of ripples in it that you and I are not in a position to grasp. Jeffro, who posted above about their concern for maximizing their funding, may have been closest to the heart of the problem.

The reading I have been doing about Goodwill Industries suggests something disturbing. Having massive experience as "an organization that helps those w/ disabilities" has led to Goodwill becoming, in the opinion of some investigators, very adept at exploiting people with disabilities. Some observers feel that Goodwill does more than just about any American organization to exploit cheap labor. This is a multi-billion dollar organization that provides extremely lucrative careers for the people who run it. They receive millions of dollars in funding from the U.S. government. Seeking to control outcomes for their programs to optimize that funding is a science with them. You just can't help people whose lives have precarious features without taking some risks. When protecting your funding takes on pre-eminent importance, then an organization becomes just like a for-profit business in that protecting the bottom line can push out more "charitable" motives.

Of course, a charity has to survive to do any good. But the cold, calculating, even ruthlesss way they described their intent on not allowing under-performing program participants to jeopardize their funding stuck me as kind of creepy when I heard it.

Thank you, mimi, for your belief that something will come along for me. Thank you for sharing your hopefulness with me. Like you, I think I could have been an asset in the work setting where Goodwill could have placed me. The sponsorship of an organization willing to believe in my potential for recovery could have been life changing for me. Goodwill Industries pays a lot of lip-service in their web sites and literature to being that kind of an organization. In person, Goodwill staff have not communicated that spirit to me.

[IndieVisible]

I did not know we were talking about Goodwill, suddenly it all makes sense.

[Rose76]

Thank you, IndieVisible, for that affirmation.

[dumburn]

Sadly it happwns all over the place. These organisations and initives will sell the pretty picture to the public, governments and anyone you may fund them, that they are doing an amazing job helping people improve their lives.
I have a long believed that it's all down to funding on results. The question they ask is "can this person make us money?" rather than "can we improve this person's life?"
When I was 18 my social worker helped me to apply for accommodation at a new YMCA that had just been built. I had supporting letters from her, my doctor and another member of my care team at the time. Yet I was turned down as I was deemed to be high a risk.
I firmly believe the majority of these organisations (especially the huge ones) are too afraid to help the people they say they will out of fear that their squeeky clean image and reputation could be tarnished