[nfb-talk] To Be or Not to Be, Irritated

[C Applegate]

I would think so Joe.  At the least it says that they aren't thinking about 
disabled people at all.  At the worst it says that they really aren't 
considering a disabled person as capable to fill the position.

One other point was interesting to me.  It also did say "citizenship 
status."  So wonder if they don't mind breaking the law by hiring illegals. 
If so might indicate a willingness to ignore discriminating against disabled 
people.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Orozco" <jsorozco at gmail.com>
To: <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 8:26 AM
Subject: [nfb-talk] To Be or Not to Be, Irritated


> Dear listers,
>
> Consider the statement below:
>
> *Company seeks a staff with varied racial, ethnic and religious 
> backgrounds.
> We do not discriminate against persons on the basis of race, color, 
> gender,
> sexual
> orientation, religious affiliation, national origin, citizenship status or
> age.*
>
> Should we be irritated that the statement does not encompass disability in
> its coverage of discrimination?  When I first read the statement I was
> amused that there were so many synonyms for ethnicity, but nowhere do you
> read about the company's commitment to equally consider persons with
> disabilities.  No, there are no standards for how a company should freely
> publish its equal employment status, yet one would think they would be a
> little more conscientious.  Or, maybe I'm just looking for a bone to pick.
> Your thoughts?
>
> Joe Orozco
>
> Nil satis nisi optimum.  "Nothing but the best is good enough."--Latin
> Proverb
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nfb-talk:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk/marshapple%40austin.rr.com