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

[seville allen]

Probably just that we are so invisible, and since disability is covered by a
different law, perhaps they were considering titles 6 and 7 of the 1964
civil rights act and their minds are still in the 1960's.  No civil rights
laws protecting disability were passed until into the 1970's and those are
pretty well not enforced and ignored. 


-----Original Message-----
From: nfb-talk-bounces+ceoallen=verizon.net at nfbnet.org
[mailto:nfb-talk-bounces+ceoallen=verizon.net at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Joe
Orozco
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 9:27 AM
To: nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
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/ceoallen%40verizon.net