Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




Excargodog
08-12-2018, 12:43 PM
The ADA was amended after Sutton's vs United Airlines in such a way that made the definition of who was covered more expansive.

The current Americans with Disability Act covers individuals that are:

a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;

(B) a record of such an impairment; or

(C) being regarded as having such an impairment(as described in paragraph (3)).

Being regarded as having such an impairment means:

For purposes of paragraph (1)(C):

(A) An individual meets the requirement of "being regarded as having such an impairment" if the individual establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited under this chapter because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.

(B) Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply to impairments that are transitory and minor. A transitory impairment is an impairment with an actual or expected duration of 6 months or less.

.....

For covered entities - and that would include all certificated US carriers,the law states:

Sec. 12112. Discrimination

(a) General rule

No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.

And again,in fairness, exceptions can be made for "business necessity."

(a) General rule

No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.

(b) Construction

As used in subsection (a) of this section, the term "discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability" includes

(1) limiting, segregating, or classifying a job applicant or employee in a way that adversely affects the opportunities or status of such applicant or employee because of the disability of such applicant or employee;

(2) participating in a contractual or other arrangement or relationship that has the effect of subjecting a covered entity's qualified applicant or employee with a disability to the discrimination prohibited by this subchapter (such relationship includes a relationship with an employment or referral agency, labor union, an organization providing fringe benefits to an employee of the covered entity, or an organization providing training and apprenticeship programs);

......

While I am not a lawyer it would seem very likely to me that qualifying or disqualifying a person from employment based upon the Hogan Test, the MMPI, or any other test not required by the FAA in granting a 1st class physical, would see on its face to be in violation of the ADA unless BOTH of two conditions were met:

1. First, the efficacy of the test for the purpose of its use would have to be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the legal community.
2. Then the business necessity would need to be demonstrated.

A company's corporate belief or historical use of something like the Hogan for discriminating against job applicants would not in itself be sufficient. Some actual science or statistical based studies would likely be required.

And even then, if the first requirement could be met, it would seem that the business case is flimsy indeed, since there are many competing airlines that seem to be prospering without using Hogan testing or MMPI.

At the very least, instituting a lawsuit (or even a class action lawsuit) would have the effect of opening the application process up to legal discovery, something I'm not sure any of the HR people would really prefer.

Just my opinion though. I haven't taken the Hogan yet, so I wouldn't have standing to sue.


galaxy flyer
08-12-2018, 12:53 PM
Step one: proving you werenít hired due to failing the Hogan, MMPI, etc testing. Big hurdle.

GF

Excargodog
08-12-2018, 01:11 PM
Step one: proving you werenít hired due to failing the Hogan, MMPI, etc testing. Big hurdle.

GF

Absolutely true. But a lawsuit alleging that to be the case opens the other side up to legal discovery where - under oath - they must then tell exactly how those decisions are made. And you also have the res ipsa loquitor issue.

If you aren't using it to make a discrimination, why are you using it at all?

You think the chief of HR really wants to tap dance around that one under oath??


Excargodog
08-12-2018, 01:26 PM
Absolutely true.

On reflection, I'm not sure it IS true. If you can establish that they violated the ADA BY TESTING YOU I believe the burden of proof shifts and THEY must then prove that the illegal testing DID NOT keep you from getting hired.

rickair7777
08-12-2018, 04:17 PM
Not a chance.

A psychological condition / impairment would be covered by the ADA.

But the airlines are not testing for that, and even if they found such a condition it would almost certainly invalidate your medical anyway. They are allowed to verify that you meet 1C standards, they just cannot apply their own, higher, medical standards any longer.

What they are testing for is personality factors, to determine your suitability for their job, culture, organization and that is perfectly legal. I happen to think it's BS that they're allowed to do that, because it imprecisely excludes too many folks who would be just fine. They could make a much better determination at a face-to-face interview, but of course that's expensive.

But not being a good "fit" for their culture is not a disability.

Excargodog
08-12-2018, 05:06 PM
But not being a good "fit" for their culture is not a disability.

Ah, but read the fine print. The law does not REQUIRE you to actually HAVE a disability to come under the law's protection, they require only that the employer PERCEIVE what you have as a disability.

And if they are allowing the testing to influence their hiring decisions, it is fairly apparent that they believe that certain test results constitute a disability.

The original Supreme Court case with UAL vs Sutton - in which UAL won - stated that the Sutton sisters were not disabled and could therefore not sue under the ADA despite their uncorrected visual acuity beyond United's standards because they indeed had valid FAA medical exams. Subsequently the ADA was specifically amended to address the issue of candidates who were not truly disabled but were perceived by employers to be disabled and discriminated against as an applicant because of that perception.
The amended law required the employer to show a business necessity for such testing. And after that amendment, UAL requiring visual acuity greater than demanded by the Federal Air Surgeon's office was quickly eliminated.

Again, not a lawyer, but I could foresee an expensive class action suit coming. If I were a company doing such testing I'd want to have real good proof of a business necessity to do such testing. Also a reason to tell the judge why I have a business necessity for this while my competitors - who are not doing similar testing - do not.

BoilerUP
08-12-2018, 05:25 PM
Thatís an awful lot of research and thought for somebody simply playing devilís advocate...

Excargodog
08-12-2018, 05:43 PM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADA_Amendments_Act_of_2008

Excargodog
08-12-2018, 06:43 PM
That’s an awful lot of research and thought for somebody simply playing devil’s advocate...

Well, it could be an issue in my future. I know it has been for some of the guys I've flown with. And in the era of google, research is fairly easy. And yeah, frankly, if someone else was hurt by this and wanted to go to court over it, that certainly wouldn't hurt my feelings - especially if they won and the testing were eliminated before I got to that point.

Like Rickair7777, I am unconvinced that this testing is anything more than BS that unfairly penalizes some applicants without truly benefiting those who employ it.

That rationale enough to do a half hour's browsing on the net on a layover?

rickair7777
08-12-2018, 07:30 PM
Ah, but read the fine print. The law does not REQUIRE you to actually HAVE a disability to come under the law's protection, they require only that the employer PERCEIVE what you have as a disability.

And if they are allowing the testing to influence their hiring decisions, it is fairly apparent that they believe that certain test results constitute a disability.


I'm sure they would argue you have no disability at all, and would be more than capable of performing the job. But they have (at least) 100 other equally qualified applicants for the same job, and are simply trying to fine tune the "fit" of their employees (for everyone's benefit).

I think it would take a very large paradigm shift to ban personality analysis in hiring because that actually also occurs in regular interviews.

About the only avenue I could imagine would be to attack the validity or fairness of the testing. That would be an uphill battle because the employers do actually have some empirical data to show...

The way those tests work, is before an organization uses them, they give the tests to their current employees. Then they identify what THEY consider to be desirable employees, and then attempt to find a consistent personality pattern across that group. Maybe they also look for patterns in problem children, to help weed them out.

Also the test companies have develop "broad" pattern matches (across many organizations) for certain types of employees, ie safety sensitive, customer service, manager, etc.

Excargodog
08-12-2018, 08:21 PM
I'm sure they would argue you have no disability at all, ...


I don't doubt you are right, but the revisions to the law made after Sutton were specifically designed to preclude that argument from being successful, to whit:

Fifth, the law removes from the ďregarded asĒ prong of the disability definition (the third prong of the definition) the requirement that an individual demonstrate that the impairment that he or she has, or is perceived to have, limits a major life activity in a way that is perceived to be substantial. Under the ADAAA, therefore, an individual can establish coverage under the law by showing that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited under the Act because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment that is not transitory and minor.[22] The law also explicitly states that although individuals who fall solely under the ďregarded asĒ prong of the definition of disability are protected from discrimination, entities covered by the ADA are not required to provide accommodations, or to modify policies and procedures, for such persons.[22]

and would be more than capable of performing the job. But they have (at least) 100 other equally qualified applicants for the same job, and are simply trying to fine tune the "fit" of their employees (for everyone's benefit).

Irrelevant under the law. Other employees might feel the "fit" would be better if Jews, African-Americans, females, or Democrats were excluded. You can't legally do that either. Well, Democrats maybe...

Excargodog
08-12-2018, 08:40 PM
I think it would take a very large paradigm shift to ban personality analysis in hiring because that actually also occurs in regular interviews.


The issue isn't personality analysis per se, it's the use of tests per se. Psychological testing that discriminates between those who are presumed to be impaired applicants and those who are presumed to not be similarly impaired applicants would seem to be in direct violation of the amended law. If you look at sites that promote such testing, they are increasingly giving warning in their advertisements that this may be the case, and appropriate legal issues should be examined before instituting such testing - their means of insulating themselves from their own liability.

If you look in the professional HR literature, they too are increasingly concerned that such testing would not survive judicial scrutiny.

About the only avenue I could imagine would be to attack the validity or fairness of the testing. That would be an uphill battle because the employers do actually have some empirical data to show...

The way those tests work, is before an organization uses them, they give the tests to their current employees. Then they identify what THEY consider to be desirable employees, and then attempt to find a consistent personality pattern across that group. Maybe they also look for patterns in problem children, to help weed them out.

Also the test companies have develop "broad" pattern matches (across many organizations) for certain types of employees, ie safety sensitive, customer service, manager, etc.

First point, I can't find anything in the literature that suggests that such testing has a predictive value positive or negative for successful employment of more than about 0.6. That's scarcely better than a flip of a coin. If you have data showing any more precision than that,I'd be glad to see it. But the validity of the testing FOR THIS PURPOSE does not seem very great.

Second point is the business necessity issue. Even if the testing were more predictive than 0.6, other people not using it in the same situation are still being successful, making it hard to argue that there is a business necessity. Simply gaining a slight business advantage over rivals is not adequate legally to defend not requiring with the law, otherwise every company could simply opt to not comply with other provisions of the ADA law, like requiring ramps for the orthopedic ally challenged. It was never imagined that passing the ADA WOULDN'T cost company's money.

Excargodog
08-12-2018, 09:31 PM
https://www.ere.net/the-problem-with-personality-tests/

This is FAR more involved, but is nonetheless a great resource for anyone wanting to seriously address the validity (or lack of same) of these tests.

https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk2/1990/9042/9042.PDF

The table 7 (page 54) data shows how great the mis classification error in this testing is. This is from a 1990 Congressional Office of Technology Assessment study done for Congress. Although dated, there appear to have been no substantial improvements in testing since that time.

BoilerUP
08-13-2018, 03:12 AM
ďFailingĒ a personality test is tantamount to a disability?

Good luck making that argument in court.

rickair7777
08-13-2018, 06:15 AM
Again, I'm not advocating for the tests, and I have no detailed knowledge of their statistical utility, if any. Could be just some more BS the HR ladies made up to justify their existence.

My gut feel is that the best (only) avenue to challenge the practice would be to show that it's unfair, as opposed to an ADA violation. But unfair isn't necessarily illegal, so you'd probably have to tie it to some other law, ie discrimination for something such as gender, race, age, etc.

These things have been around for a while, you'd think some industrious shyster would have already at least considered a class action by now if there was any merit to it.

Also... you might have trouble getting pilots to join you. If they've reached their career-destination job, they probably don't care anymore. If they haven't, most probably don't want to volunteer to be on a very public list of people who fail personality tests and also sue airlines. That list would end up taped to the wall in every airline recruiter and HR manager's office. Litigious people are not a protected class, you can discriminate in hiring against them as far as I know.

Excargodog
08-13-2018, 07:16 AM
Again, I'm not advocating for the tests, and I have no detailed knowledge of their statistical utility, if any. Could be just some more BS the HR ladies made up to justify their existence.

My gut feel is that the best (only) avenue to challenge the practice would be to show that it's unfair, as opposed to an ADA violation. But unfair isn't necessarily illegal, so you'd probably have to tie it to some other law, ie discrimination for something such as gender, race, age, etc.

These things have been around for a while, you'd think some industrious shyster would have already at least considered a class action by now if there was any merit to it.

Also... you might have trouble getting pilots to join you. If they've reached their career-destination job, they probably don't care anymore. If they haven't, most probably don't want to volunteer to be on a very public list of people who fail personality tests and also sue airlines. That list would end up taped to the wall in every airline recruiter and HR manager's office. Litigious people are not a protected class, you can discriminate in hiring against them as far as I know.

IN order to have standing to sue you would need to have been rejected as an applicant by an airline using such a test, but that doesn't mean that you wouldn't necessarily be successfully hired by another one. Nor would having "failed" such a test actually mean anything about you as a pilot or employee. Even those HR people who advocate for these tests acknowledge a huge false rejection rate
And see them mainly as a vehicle for cheaply culling down a massive number of advocates.

The biggest problem, IMHO, is that this is a seriously big cottage industry that is going to fight tooth and nail to stay in business, and the merit argument requires a knowledge of statistics that most people don't have, making the ADA route, or discrimination against protected classes, or similar legal argument a far easier route for the judges, jury, and regulators to understand.

But eventually some shyster may indeed pick this up. It hasn't affected me yet, but I know some guys who seem to me like great pilots and employees that claim to have been shafted by the Hogan.

Just doesn't seem right to have them brushed aside because of a test that misclassifies people so often.

Excargodog
08-13-2018, 07:21 AM
“Failing” a personality test is tantamount to a disability?

Good luck making that argument in court.

Nope. The argument is that the company BELIEVES the person less able because they've scored low on the test. You do not need to be disabled to be covered by the ADA. You are covered if someone you are applying to BELIEVES that you are less able.

And again,if the company doesn't BELIEVE the test results do not discriminate against the less able, why are they testing at all?

BoilerUP
08-13-2018, 07:56 AM
Personality tests have *nothing* to do with ABILITY to perform a job or occupation.

Once one accepts that basic premise, any claim of discrimination and damages therein begins to fall apart.

GuardPolice
08-13-2018, 08:00 AM
Nope. The argument is that the company BELIEVES the person less able because they've scored low on the test. You do not need to be disabled to be covered by the ADA. You are covered if someone you are applying to BELIEVES that you are less able.

And again,if the company doesn't BELIEVE the test results do not discriminate against the less able, why are they testing at all?


Less able doesnít mean someone is disabled. I love sports and generally suck at playing them. Therefore, I am less able to play them well. That doesnít mean Iím disabled.

Youíre conflating lack of ability with legitimate disabilities.

Lastly, youíre barking up the wrong tree. Thousands of people have successfully passed these tests. Given the success of the tests, youíre making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Excargodog
08-13-2018, 09:02 AM
Less able doesn’t mean someone is disabled. I love sports and generally suck at playing them. Therefore, I am less able to play them well. That doesn’t mean I’m disabled.

You’re conflating lack of ability with legitimate disabilities.

Lastly, you’re barking up the wrong tree. Thousands of people have successfully passed these tests. Given the success of the tests, you’re making a mountain out of a mole hill.


The OMB report is far less certain of the "success" of such tests than you seem to be. But even if it were true, it wouldn't matter under the ADA if "reasonable accommodation" we're possible.

From the EEOC website:


Disability Discrimination
Disability discrimination occurs when an employer or other entity covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, or the Rehabilitation Act, as amended, treats a qualified individual with a disability who is an employee or applicant unfavorably because she has a disability. Learn more about the Act at ADA at 25.
Disability discrimination also occurs when a covered employer or other entity treats an applicant or employee less favorably because she has a history of a disability (such as cancer that is controlled or in remission) or because she is believed to have a physical or mental impairment that is not transitory (lasting or expected to last six months or less) and minor (even if she does not have such an impairment).



It would seem that the onus would be in the employer to prove that the Hogan was sufficiently effective that it was a business necessity to employ it and that there was no reasonable accommodation they could make to offset whatever Hogan related issue they were rejecting applicants for. I don't think they could find a single statistician willing to say it was anything other than a crude and not terribly effective screen, especially when applied to an applicant group already possessing an FAA class one physical, an ATP, and a couple thousand hours of 121 time.

You have to understand, the law was rewritten precisely to overcome the issues that allowed UAL to prevail in UAL vs Sutton.

GuardPolice
08-13-2018, 09:29 AM
The OMB report is far less certain of the "success" of such tests than you seem to be. But even if it were true, it wouldn't matter under the ADA if "reasonable accommodation" we're possible.

From the EEOC website:



It would seem that the onus would be in the employer to prove that the Hogan was sufficiently effective that it was a business necessity to employ it and that there was no reasonable accommodation they could make to offset whatever Hogan related issue they were rejecting applicants for. I don't think they could find a single statistician willing to say it was anything other than a crude and not terribly effective screen, especially when applied to an applicant group already possessing an FAA class one physical, an ATP, and a couple thousand hours of 121 time.

You have to understand, the law was rewritten precisely to overcome the issues that allowed UAL to prevail in UAL vs Sutton.


Do you think United should have been forced to hire the Horizon employee who took the Q400 for a joyride if he failed the Hogan?

And Iím beginning to suspect youíve got an unspoken agenda here. It's odd you keep pushing the issue given your admission you havenít taken these tests.

rickair7777
08-13-2018, 10:51 AM
You have to understand, the law was rewritten precisely to overcome the issues that allowed UAL to prevail in UAL vs Sutton.

That was a technicality, an unintended consequence of the language used in the ADA.

Banning personality testing (and possibly other HR practices?) would would likely take a deliberate act of legislation, I doubt the courts could spin the ADA that far (although a few might have a go at it).

That would open up the much broader issue of what techniques are fair and equitable in the screening of potential employees? Should interviews be restricted to avoid any nuanced influence due to personality factors? Ie you can't favor a polished, charming applicant over a toad? What then? All technically qualified applicant's names go in a hat and do a random draw for the winner?

Excargodog
08-13-2018, 05:49 PM
Do you think United should have been forced to hire the Horizon employee who took the Q400 for a joyride if he failed the Hogan?

A sort of ridiculous question giving that the guy didn't even have a pilot's license, don't you think.


And Iím beginning to suspect youíve got an unspoken agenda here. It's odd you keep pushing the issue given your admission you havenít taken these tests.

Really? Did your Hogan or MMPI demonstrate any other paranoid ideation?

GuardPolice
08-13-2018, 05:56 PM
A sort of ridiculous question giving that the guy didn't even have a pilot's license, don't you think.









Really? Did your Hogan or MMPI demonstrate any other paranoid ideation?

Ever heard of a hypothetical?

This whole exercise is sort of ridiculous since you havenít experienced the tests. It sounds like youíre making excuses for failing them in advance.

And, no, Iím not demonstrating paranoid ideation. Challenging your perceived agenda isnít paranoia.

Excargodog
08-13-2018, 06:18 PM
That was a technicality, an unintended consequence of the language used in the ADA.

Which 'that' are you referring to? The amended language or the original language?

Banning personality testing (and possibly other HR practices?) would would likely take a deliberate act of legislation, I doubt the courts could spin the ADA that far (although a few might have a go at it).

I don't know. If you read the individual Supreme Court judges opinions in Sutton, it was clear that several of them who voted in favor of UAL nonetheless believed that United requiring a higher uncorrected visual standard than the federal air surgeon was both unnecessary and abhorrent to them, but that the original phrasing of the ADA simply didn't allow them to find in favor of the two sisters. A couple went so far as suggesting the ADA BE CHANGED TO DISALLOW SUCH requirements unless it coukd be shown there was a legitimate business interest, a criteria which they clearly didn't believe UALs 'well, if one lost her glasses the airplane might crash while she fumbled around for her second pair' met.

That would open up the much broader issue of what techniques are fair and equitable in the screening of potential employees? Should interviews be restricted to avoid any nuanced influence due to personality factors? Ie you can't favor a polished, charming applicant over a toad? What then? All technically qualified applicant's names go in a hat and do a random draw for the winner?

To an extent that is already the case. Tests that discriminate against protected classes are already illegal, even if you CAN show a business interest. If any test shows a bias - generally such that any test results in a minority, female, gay, etc., being disadvantaged by 20%, the rebuttable assumption is the test is illegal. And even now the DOJ is investigating Harvard Univ for using "personality" to discriminate against Asian-Americans in admissions.

I don't think this is that big a jump.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/4/7/doj-intervenes-in-lawsuit/

2StgTurbine
08-13-2018, 06:25 PM
Why waste your time on an internet fight? Take United to court and prove the industry wrong.

Excargodog
08-13-2018, 06:42 PM
Why waste your time on an internet fight? Take United to court and prove the industry wrong.

Having not yet even taken the test, far less having been disqualified by it, I lack standing to sue.

2StgTurbine
08-13-2018, 06:46 PM
Then relax, have a drink, and stop worrying about it.

galaxy flyer
08-13-2018, 07:40 PM
Then what would be solution absent these tests? Interviews? What standards?

GF

Excargodog
08-13-2018, 08:47 PM
Then what would be solution absent these tests? Interviews? What standards?

GF

All majors don't use the Hogan. Yet those that don't do not appear to have pilots substantially inferior to those that do. That would seem to scuttle the business necessity argument.

Why are you so anxious to defend a test that has little if any power to distinguish between people who will be successful in the job and those who won't?

The issue comes down to something in group statistics called Bayes Theorem. If you were using personality testing on an unscreened group - just guys off the street - personality testing like MMPI Or the Hogan would have reasonable statistical power to pick out the 1% who are schizophrenic and the 3 or 4% who are chronically depressed. The predictive value of a positive assessment or negative assessment might be pretty decent. But that isn't what you are doing. When you change the population being screened to a group that - for instance, has safely accumulated 5000 flying hours including 1500-2000 of 121 time, has passed a half dozen physicals (even FAA physicals), has a clean police record, passed the KCM check, and has a few recommendations from people with similar qualifications who know him/her, you've ALREADY eliminated the vast majority of the problem children, so even if you apply the exact same criteria, the value of the test goes way down.

Your percentage of false positives doesn't change, but there are barely any true positives to be found. Basically if you use the results to cull half the applicants, the bottom half that you are eliminating do not differ in any meaningful way from the 'top' half you are keeping.

I mean, don't take my word for it. Look up Bayes Theorem or ask some statistician. By the time you apply a screening test to a population that has already been heavily screened by other criteria you might as well just flip a coin and save the money.


https://betterexplained.com/articles/an-intuitive-and-short-explanation-of-bayes-theorem/

Excargodog
08-13-2018, 08:50 PM
Then relax, have a drink, and stop worrying about it.

I'm not worrying about it. I'm bringing it up as a matter of law and general interest. I have friends who are entirely competent pilots who believe, rightly or wrongly, that their careers have been adversely affected by the Hogan.

Excargodog
08-13-2018, 08:59 PM
Ever heard of a hypothetical?

This whole exercise is sort of ridiculous since you haven’t experienced the tests. It sounds like you’re making excuses for failing them in advance.

I've never had a positive test for cancer either but if I were going to get a screening test for cancer it would be important for me to know how often a positive test was really associated with actually having cancer too, as well as how often a negative test missed finding a cancer.

2StgTurbine
08-13-2018, 09:02 PM
has safely accumulated 5000 flying hours including 1500-2000 of 121 time.

I flew with plenty of pilots with clean records who were far from safe. There are lots of mechanisms in place in this industry that protect bad pilots. I met a few that did not understand how to actually fly an engine out procedure in a mountainous airport. That deficiency would only be uncovered if they had an engine fail at V1 in Aspen.

has passed a half dozen physicals (even FAA physicals)

Look at any thread here asking for an AME recommendation and there are tons of "pilot friendly" examiners. I have even heard of pilots taking a 3 hour flight for an easy medical.

has a clean police record

So, by avoiding a bar fight, you should get a job at a legacy.

passed the KCM check

Are you serious? You have a valid license and don't test positive for explosive residue.

hhas a few recommendations from people with similar qualifications

I agree that a recommendation is good, but if every active pilot recommends someone, then how is management realistically supposed to rate each and every one of the 10,000 plus recommendations?

Personally, I am against personality tests too, but when a company has to evaluate literally thousands of applicants they are looking for anything that will help them reduce the number of people that they actually have to interview.

2StgTurbine
08-13-2018, 09:09 PM
I have friends who are entirely competent pilots who believe, rightly or wrongly, that their careers have been adversely affected by the Hogan.

I highly doubt that it is solely the Hogan that is holding them back. The aviation industry is wide. If they really want to get out of the regional game and are professional pilots, there are plenty of jobs. If they won't settle for anything else other than a legacy, then apply to Delta. At least the personality test is just one part of the interview. If that doesn't work out, look at the cargo ar ACMI world. There are even 135 and 91 companies who would be happy to have a professional 121 pilot with a good attitude.

Like most industries, ours is messed up and not 100% fair. But one cannot solely blame their failing career on the Hogan. There are many options available, but it might require one to give up on the specific dream for flying for United.

Excargodog
08-13-2018, 09:16 PM
Personally, I am against personality tests too, but when a company has to evaluate literally thousands of applicants they are looking for anything that will help them reduce the number of people that they actually have to interview.

I understand that, but they can do that by simply flipping a coin.

Look, all I can do is tell you to look at the facts on screening tests OF ANY KIND in an already highly screened group.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weighing-the-positives/

Personality tests might be reasonable if they really made a difference, but there is little evidence to suggest they do. And the norming that Hogan and other companies use for their 'validity testing' measures their results against an unscreened population, and even then the results do not have huge predicting power. The same test applied against your average applicant to a major simply lacks the statistical power to predict much of anything, which is why the majors that don't use the Hogan don't seem to have any disadvantage in personnel over those who do.

BoilerUP
08-14-2018, 03:36 AM
Again, these tests have NOTHING to do with *ability*, and everything to do with cultural/institutional fit of a candidate into an organization.

Are they perfect? No, absolutely not, nothing is...but they are another tool in the HR arsenal to mitigate the risks of a candidate ending up a liability to a company as an employee.

And for the record, I think the tests are bunk too and miss a lot of good people..but legally discriminatory, absolutely not.

I never took MMPI, but Hogan was little more than the same question asked four-six times with varying degrees of 'intensity', with at least one absolute trap question for integrity thrown in, ie. "I have never lied" - True or False. EVERYBODY has lied in some fashion, so if you answer True to that you're done. Then you get "I try not to lie", "I lie to others often", and "I sometimes tell a little white lie to spare someone's feelings". Doesn't take a Tier One Rocket Surgeon to figure out where the goalposts are there...

Excargodog
08-14-2018, 07:10 AM
Again, these tests have NOTHING to do with *ability*, and everything to do with cultural/institutional fit of a candidate into an organization.

Are they perfect? No, absolutely not, nothing is...but they are another tool in the HR arsenal to mitigate the risks of a candidate ending up a liability to a company as an employee.


Even were I to agree that this is the case, the question arises as to whether they are an effective tool for that purpose. The company's own validity testing would suggest they are not.

These tests are normed against the general population. Even in that group they lack statistical power. But in this context they are being used against a highly screened population.

The overwhelming majority of guys who are chronic troublemakers never made it through all the hoops; multiple check rides, thousands of hours of successful flying, a half dozen physicals, working with dozens of other pilots as they accumulated their 121 hours,etc. The unmotivated people who would rather hold up a sign on the street corner claiming to be a Vietnam war vet (the last one, I swear, was in his mid 20s) do not go to the effort to get there.

You simply don't add value to a screening process by using such an ineffective tool against an already pre screened and select population. You just don't.

The USAF looked at it. By the time someone had successfully completed UPT/UNT, went on to RTU, and became a squadron flyer, monitored along the way by SOFs, supervisors, and Stan-eval, gotten a security clearance, etc., the yield on other stuff - including personality tests, was essentially zero.

Aptitude tests for newbies coming in the door at Basic Training or a flight screening program prior to going to UPT/UNT? Different story. It was the USAF (OK, Army air corps back then) that developed the stanine testing. With those aptitude tests you can at least mitigate your training costs a little, by not sending to expensive training people highly likely to drop out, but personality tests? At the level of already trained flyer? No cost-benefit whatsoever. You were wasting the taxpayers money, at least at that end of the pipeline.

And in real life, can you actually tell me you believe that a major airline company that uses the Hogan routinely has fewer problem child aviators than a major airline that doesn't? And that you believe the difference if any us actually attributable to the Hogan?

2StgTurbine
08-14-2018, 08:03 AM
Legacy carriers are not having a problem filling classes and seem happy with the quality of pilots they are getting. Until those things change, they are not going to mess with their hiring practices.

Excargodog
08-14-2018, 08:13 AM
Legacy carriers are not having a problem filling classes and seem happy with the quality of pilots they are getting. Until those things change, they are not going to mess with their hiring practices.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Eventually they might realize they are paying for nothing, and their competitors are doing just fine without such testing.

Or maybe they'll decide it's not worth defending the statistically indefensible if someone does take them to court.

We'll see.

You have a good day now...

BoilerUP
08-14-2018, 09:31 AM
The overwhelming majority of guys who are chronic troublemakers never made it through all the hoops; multiple check rides, thousands of hours of successful flying, a half dozen physicals, working with dozens of other pilots as they accumulated their 121 hours,etc.

I would absolutely disagree with that, as would probably everybody who has ever been a 91, 135 or 121 Chief Pilot.

And in real life, can you actually tell me you believe that a major airline company that uses the Hogan routinely has fewer problem child aviators than a major airline that doesn't? And that you believe the difference if any us actually attributable to the Hogan?

No I can't tell you that, I don't have the data.

I do have a hard time believing organizations would use psych evals (with associated costs) if THEY didn't firmly believe they provided value in the recruiting process.

Stimpy the Kat
08-14-2018, 09:41 AM
Different but related..

How many Color Blind pilots do the airlines hire ?

Aren't they protected under the ADA, especially if they hold a First Class Medical with a S.O.D.A ?

Unscientifically, I bet the number of Color Blind pilots (at the Legacies anyway ) is approx. ZERO (?)

Discuss..

:)

rickair7777
08-14-2018, 10:46 AM
Different but related..

How many Color Blind pilots do the airlines hire ?

Aren't they protected under the ADA, especially if they hold a First Class Medical with a S.O.D.A ?

Unscientifically, I bet the number of Color Blind pilots (at the Legacies anyway ) is approx. ZERO (?)

Discuss..

:)

I think the real filter on that these days is the FAA. I'm not sure an airline today could/would refuse to employ a pilot based on a condition for which he has a SODA.

Excargodog
08-14-2018, 11:13 AM
I would absolutely disagree with that, as would probably everybody who has ever been a 91, 135 or 121 Chief Pilot.



And everyone who has ever been a street cop would disagree with you. I'm not saying that bad actors STILL don't get through to become candidates for the majors, and I'm sure that the relatively small percentage that do are a constant pain to the Chief Pilots at every level, but any street cop would tell you that pilots as a group and professional pilots in particular are rather dramatically under represented among troublemakers in the general public - even relative to their sparse numbers.

Excargodog
08-14-2018, 11:17 AM
Different but related..

How many Color Blind pilots do the airlines hire ?

Aren't they protected under the ADA, especially if they hold a First Class Medical with a S.O.D.A ?

Unscientifically, I bet the number of Color Blind pilots (at the Legacies anyway ) is approx. ZERO (?)

Discuss..

:)

Nope. 10% of all males have some degree of color deficiency and that includes many flying for the majors. And the ADA was specifically amended after Sutton vs UAL to preclude airlines setting their own physical standards higher than required by the FAA.

In fact, they can't even do a company physical on you until AFTER they hire you. Nor can they legally even ask you if you have a SODA.

Stimpy the Kat
08-14-2018, 11:37 AM
I remember many of the airline's application forms in the 90's slipping in some sort of question like : " Any Waivers" or " Statements of Demonstrated Ability" - if so, what for?

It was very simple for them to set up the screening so that those interviews never happened. Even easier after the computers started looking at all applications.

It would be interesting to know how many of the top ten airlines have hired Color Blind pilots and, approx. how many prior to and after the rulings came down that they couldn't ask about such things.

??

Stimpson

Excargodog
08-14-2018, 12:07 PM
I remember many of the airline's application forms in the 90's slipping in some sort of question like : " Any Waivers" or " Statements of Demonstrated Ability" - if so, what for?


I believe you. UAL vs Sutton wasn't decided until 1999 and it took Congress about 8 more years to revise the ADA to preclude employers doing that.

Of course any caught TRYING to do that now would probably be paying the individual through the nose if they didn't give him/her (although for color deficiency mostly him) the job after they ask the question, and in trouble with the DOJ either way. Stupid policies CAN be changed, no matter how hallowed by tradition. Although sometimes - yeah, it takes something like amending the ADA to do it.

From the EEOC website:

Can an Employer Require Medical Examinations or Ask Questions About a Disability?
If you are applying for a job, an employer cannot ask you if you are disabled or ask about the nature or severity of your disability. An employer can ask if you can perform the duties of the job with or without reasonable accommodation. An employer can also ask you to describe or to demonstrate how, with or without reasonable accommodation, you will perform the duties of the job.

An employer cannot require you to take a medical examination before you are offered a job. Following a job offer, an employer can condition the offer on your passing a required medical examination, but only if all entering employees for that job category have to take the examination. However, an employer cannot reject you because of information about your disability revealed by the medical examination, unless the reasons for rejection are job-related and necessary for the conduct of the employer's business. The employer cannot refuse to hire you because of your disability if you can perform the essential functions of the job with an accommodation.

Once you have been hired and started work, your employer cannot require that you take a medical examination or ask questions about your disability unless they are related to your job and necessary for the conduct of your employer's business. Your employer may conduct voluntary medical examinations that are part of an employee health program, and may provide medical information required by State workers' compensation laws to the agencies that administer such laws.

The results of all medical examinations must be kept confidential, and maintained in separate medical files.

galaxy flyer
08-14-2018, 01:50 PM
Well, back in the 80s, airline company physicals were standard part of interviewing. AA had a grueling one. I had one to get hired at EAL, pretty much the FAA one, but tighter standards on some areas. Most airlines flat out required 20/20 uncorrected to be hired. Anyway, I had a spinal fusion after a trauma injury and at m6 back to work physical in Ď87 was told, it would be one of the few disqualifying injuriesótoo much exposure for early disability claim.



Gf

BarrySeal
08-14-2018, 02:05 PM
to the OP:


What is the disability you have that the Hogan will identify ?


To "win" such a case,



you need to have a disability
FYI that if indeed you have a disability, is the FAA aware ?


Sec. 12102. Definition of disability As used in this chapter:
(1) Disability
The term "disability" means, with respect to an individual
(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;
(B) a record of such an impairment; or
(C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as described in paragraph (3)).






To prove discrimination in this case, you will need to (again), have a disability, and prove that the employers knowledge of said disability caused them to discriminate against you. If your FAA medical file is clean, and your driver's license has no medical limitations, what else does the Hogan employer have to use to "know" you are disabled ? They don't.


Note you CAN be disabled and have an FAA medical, but I don't think that scenario applies here.

Excargodog
08-14-2018, 02:36 PM
to the OP:


What is the disability you have that the Hogan will identify ?


To "win" such a case,



you need to have a disability
FYI that if indeed you have a disability, is the FAA aware ?




To prove discrimination in this case, you will need to (again), have a disability, and prove that the employers knowledge of said disability caused them to discriminate against you. If your FAA medical file is clean, and your driver's license has no medical limitations, what else does the Hogan employer have to use to "know" you are disabled ? They don't.


Note you CAN be disabled and have an FAA medical, but I don't think that scenario applies here.

What you say was the law before the 2008 amendment to the ADA and pretty much why the UAL won in UAL vs Sutton which was fought all the way up to the Supreme Court. But the law was changed directly in response to UAL vs Sutton, indeed several SCOTUS judges that voted in favor of UAL RECOMMENDED that it be changed because they thought UAL had no business necessity to medically disqualify anyone that the FAA deemed qualified. But also reinforced was the
"C. Being regarded as having a disability issue".

Disqualifying on the basis of an MMPI or Hogan may indeed be considered by a court as the would-be employer regarding the applicant as having a disability, meaning they would not be required to actually be disabled under the law.

A number of MMPI-derived personality tests have already been declared by courts to be in violation of the law and companies ordered to stop using them for pre-employment screening although to my knowledge the Hogan has not yet been challenged in this regard.

Of course all the companies using this test would need to do was to meet the 'business necessity' requirement, but based upon their own reliability testing, that would appear real difficult for them.

fadec
10-19-2018, 02:37 AM
Excargodog is 100% correct about Bayes theorem. For the uninitiated: if you were to administer a test on a population previously screened with certainty to be free of some defect, then all positive results for the defect are necessarily false and the test is worthless. The better the pre-screening is, the more worthless the test is.

But at first glance, reference to Bayes could actually hurt his argument. If the test is shown to approximate random elimination then this test cannot possibly discriminate based on real or perceived disabilities, even if that is the employer's intent.

Here's the thing though, pilots are pre-screened primarily only on select traits that pilots require. The Hogan may still effectively discriminate among other traits where pilots have no pre-screening. These traits are the ones that could prove troublesome for the company, since it would be harder to prove a business necessity for discrimination in these areas.

So Bayes reasoning does two things here:

1. Shows that the Hogan cannot effectively discriminate among traits for which pilots are typically screened. United isn't a pilot's first job, so pre-screening defeats the test.

2. Leaves open the possibility that the Hogan does effectively discriminate among other traits. These are the traits that no one else has screened. They are not a business necessity.

Folks, this is a phycological test. The employer will use the result to assess phycological competence. Anything below the desired competence is a perceived disability. Bayes can show that these disabilities occur only in areas that are not a business necessity. If I were on United's legal team I'd be worried about this. Excargodog's argument is strong even without reference to Bayes.

The only way out of this is for the company is to insist that the Hogan is not a psychological test. If the Hogan were part of a Bayesian filter and correct answers were found and weighted only through discipline statistics and previous tests, then it could be considered a statistical risk assessment and I believe that would be legal. As a phycological test, however, with answers chosen and weighted by smart people, this test is currently illegal.

Excargodog
10-19-2018, 07:50 AM
There is another wholly unrelated issue with the Hogan. It is not necessarily a legal issue, but it could be a PR issue.

The stated goal of the company in giving the test is to insure that future hirees are compatible with previous hirees. A different way of phrasing this is that they want to have procedures that insure a lack of diversity in their Pilot employees. Given that the Hogan hasn't ever been cross-culturally validated, this sort of sounds like someone going to considerable effort to discriminate. In fact, it could easily be made to seem xenophobic by any enterprising young journalist who wanted to count coup on a big corporation.

sailingfun
10-20-2018, 06:22 AM
There is another wholly unrelated issue with the Hogan. It is not necessarily a legal issue, but it could be a PR issue.

The stated goal of the company in giving the test is to insure that future hirees are compatible with previous hirees. A different way of phrasing this is that they want to have procedures that insure a lack of diversity in their Pilot employees. Given that the Hogan hasn't ever been cross-culturally validated, this sort of sounds like someone going to considerable effort to discriminate. In fact, it could easily be made to seem xenophobic by any enterprising young journalist who wanted to count coup on a big corporation.

Most major airlines would simply show their statistics on hiring. I suspect most qualified minority applicants have a higher rate of getting the job offer than white males. End of story at that point.

Excargodog
10-20-2018, 06:26 PM
Most major airlines would simply show their statistics on hiring. I suspect most qualified minority applicants have a higher rate of getting the job offer than white males. End of story at that point.

Not if someone mounted a good PR campaign against it.

sailingfun
10-23-2018, 11:52 AM
Not if someone mounted a good PR campaign against it.

Against what? Having hiring standards? When you interview 100 applicants to hire 10 you are going to discriminate against 90. You might discriminate against them for test scores, interview skills, background, legal issues or not having a fresh haircut and shined shoes. Hiring is a discriminatory process.
Sounds like some of the sea lawyers on here would only be happy with hiring by lottery.

badflaps
10-23-2018, 01:06 PM
I think the Hogan is probably outdated. It's true purpose was to see if the subject would object to wearing a hat. Delta will carry on.

fadec
10-25-2018, 09:30 AM
Most major airlines would simply show their statistics on hiring. I suspect most qualified minority applicants have a higher rate of getting the job offer than white males. End of story at that point.

Except that "minority" isn't a protected status. Race and gender are, and that includes white males. Discriminating against them is equally illegal to discriminating against any other race/gender group.

742Dash
10-31-2018, 06:42 PM
...Sounds like some of the sea lawyers on here would only be happy with hiring by lottery.

Having watched decades of major airline hiring practices and having had a family member go through the current med school application process (successfully, so this is not about being bitter) -- yea. At some point it should be a lottery.

You have a position that attracts thousands of applications. You work that down via reasonable screening criteria and interviews to a number that is still much higher than you are going to hire. What is left? The final process becomes petty and often results in classes made up of clones selected on the basis of the latest HR fad and those who have the best connections.

Design the hiring system using best practices. And if at the end of that there are excess applicants then yes, lottery. The end result would be much better.

Excargodog
10-31-2018, 07:49 PM
Having watched decades of major airline hiring practices and having had a family member go through the current med school application process (successfully, so this is not about being bitter) -- yea. At some point it should be a lottery.

You have a position that attracts thousands of applications. You work that down via reasonable screening criteria and interviews to a number that is still much higher than you are going to hire. What is left? The final process becomes petty and often results in classes made up of clones selected on the basis of the latest HR fad and those who have the best connections.

Design the hiring system using best practices. And if at the end of that there are excess applicants then yes, lottery. The end result would be much better.


^^^^
Agree. Far better than pseudo science like personality testing. And eventually someone is going to take them to court alleging discrimination because of perceived disability and the airline is going to have to show a business case justifying use of the Hogan - which they will be totally unable to do since so many other companies and organizations (including the US military) manage to successfully pick pilots without it - and the test will fade into history.

rickair7777
11-01-2018, 06:13 PM
Having watched decades of major airline hiring practices and having had a family member go through the current med school application process (successfully, so this is not about being bitter) -- yea. At some point it should be a lottery.

You have a position that attracts thousands of applications. You work that down via reasonable screening criteria and interviews to a number that is still much higher than you are going to hire. What is left? The final process becomes petty and often results in classes made up of clones selected on the basis of the latest HR fad and those who have the best connections.

Design the hiring system using best practices. And if at the end of that there are excess applicants then yes, lottery. The end result would be much better.

Instead of lottery for the final cut, how about oldest first?

That gives the opportunity to those who need it more, and everyone younger will have their turn eventually.

Avoids the lopsided injustice of a 26 y/o enjoying a 40-year legacy career, while a 50 y/o languishes in an RJ (assuming equally qualified).

742Dash
11-02-2018, 01:53 AM
Instead of lottery for the final cut, how about oldest first?

Age or experience could be used to rank otherwise equal selection results. But HR would not like that, since it is best to hire young when faced with a long term labor shortage. Which could lead to my conspiracy theory about why "too much time" is an issue these days, but I will spare everyone that rant.

As for the issue at hand, I think that a lottery would make many in the industry face up to their deeply held just-world fallacies.

sailingfun
11-02-2018, 03:06 AM
Having watched decades of major airline hiring practices and having had a family member go through the current med school application process (successfully, so this is not about being bitter) -- yea. At some point it should be a lottery.

You have a position that attracts thousands of applications. You work that down via reasonable screening criteria and interviews to a number that is still much higher than you are going to hire. What is left? The final process becomes petty and often results in classes made up of clones selected on the basis of the latest HR fad and those who have the best connections.

Design the hiring system using best practices. And if at the end of that there are excess applicants then yes, lottery. The end result would be much better.

Or you could track how your hired pilots perform going through training and adjust your hiring practices based on that performance. Oh wait, several major airlines do that already!

Excargodog
11-02-2018, 07:14 AM
Age or experience could be used to rank otherwise equal selection results. But HR would not like that, since it is best to hire young when faced with a long term labor shortage.

Except there ISN'T a long term labor shortage - not at the legacies, or really at any of the majors. And the CHEAPEST for the major in total lifetime personnel costs is actually to hire the OLDER guy/gal who will be maxing out his/her pay and pension for the minimum time possible.

If they can hook them with a low-pay wholly owned, keep their pay low with a long upgrade, then a long wait for flow, by the time they get to the major and start anew (at zero seniority) they wil average less overall pay, and you can always replace them with one of the major FOs (with less seniority) and then replace him/her with someone new (with zero seniority) whose been making below regional leading pay at your regional for the last 8-9 years.

American has certainly figured this out. Slow the progression from regional first officer to major retiree as much as possible and you pay out the least in personnel costs over time.

Work out the case yourself. You'll see. The decreased time anyone will ever spend at the highest part of the major payscale far more than offsets the increased training costs. Because every new FO gets their Payscale reset to year one.

742Dash
11-02-2018, 12:26 PM
Or you could track how your hired pilots perform going through training and adjust your hiring practices based on that performance. Oh wait, several major airlines do that already!

Which falls under the term "best practices".

Nevertheless it is an extremely optimistic, if not delusional, HR Department or VP of Ops who thinks that their hiring system can pick through 5,000 applicants and find the 478 best candidates for their 478 positions.

sailingfun
11-05-2018, 08:05 AM
Which falls under the term "best practices".

Nevertheless it is an extremely optimistic, if not delusional, HR Department or VP of Ops who thinks that their hiring system can pick through 5,000 applicants and find the 478 best candidates for their 478 positions.

Itís their company and they should be able to use any system or means they like to pick new employees other than violating discrimination laws. We have become a society of entitled individuals.

PDRit
11-25-2018, 10:37 AM
There is another wholly unrelated issue with the Hogan. It is not necessarily a legal issue, but it could be a PR issue.

The stated goal of the company in giving the test is to insure that future hirees are compatible with previous hirees. A different way of phrasing this is that they want to have procedures that insure a lack of diversity in their Pilot employees. Given that the Hogan hasn't ever been cross-culturally validated, this sort of sounds like someone going to considerable effort to discriminate. In fact, it could easily be made to seem xenophobic by any enterprising young journalist who wanted to count coup on a big corporation.

You are truly delusional if you believe UAL doesnít hire a diverse group of pilots. Just recently there was a article showing UAL had the highest % and total number of female pilots of any airline in the world. We have 3 Base Chief pilots who are African American and a female system Chief Pilot.

You are obviously upset that you didnít pass the Hogan but based upon your postings and and thoughts I think the Hogan did exactly what it was supposed to do. Weeding you out was a good call.

Go try to get hired at DL, WN or AA. See how ďillegalĒ their systems are. Not everyone gets a pony.

Good luck elsewhere.

PDRit
11-25-2018, 10:46 AM
I'm not worrying about it. I'm bringing it up as a matter of law and general interest. I have friends who are entirely competent pilots who believe, rightly or wrongly, that their careers have been adversely affected by the Hogan.

Careers arenít ruined by the Hogan. Who do you blame if you pass the Hogan and fail the face to face interview? The interview team? Iím guessing you and your ďfriendsĒ would never blame themselves because they are perfect. And thus that is why you and your ďfriendsĒ were whacked via the Hogan.

If United used the Hogan results and shared them with other employers then you would have a case. But they donít. You just arenít what the company is looking for. Move on.

Excargodog
11-25-2018, 11:20 AM
Careers aren’t ruined by the Hogan. Who do you blame if you pass the Hogan and fail the face to face interview? The interview team? I’m guessing you and your “friends” would never blame themselves because they are perfect. And thus that is why you and your “friends” were whacked via the Hogan.

If United used the Hogan results and shared them with other employers then you would have a case. But they don’t. You just aren’t what the company is looking for. Move on.

If the company can make a legitimate business case - that is, demonstrate that those selected with the Hogan perform in some way better than those rejected by it, there is no problem whatsoever under the ADA. But so far nobody has been able to demonstrate that.

It ain't personal. I've never taken the Hogan, but I am familiar how HR people are being affected by the ADA and rightly or wrongly, use of the Hogan might prove a legal risk under the ADA UNLESS A BUSINESS CASE CAN BE MADE.

It wouldn't be the first well intentioned but perhaps poorly written law that got twisted into something scarcely recognizable by the legal community. Title IX comes to mind.

For that matter, have you flown with your first miniature horse service animal yet? Most followers of Islam won't do seeing eye dogs it turns out.

PDRit
11-25-2018, 01:35 PM
If the company can make a legitimate business case - that is, demonstrate that those selected with the Hogan perform in some way better than those rejected by it, there is no problem whatsoever under the ADA. But so far nobody has been able to demonstrate that.

It ain't personal. I've never taken the Hogan, but I am familiar how HR people are being affected by the ADA and rightly or wrongly, use of the Hogan might prove a legal risk under the ADA UNLESS A BUSINESS CASE CAN BE MADE.

It wouldn't be the first well intentioned but perhaps poorly written law that got twisted into something scarcely recognizable by the legal community. Title IX comes to mind.

For that matter, have you flown with your first miniature horse service animal yet? Most followers of Islam won't do seeing eye dogs it turns out.

Demonstrate to who? If you have a lawsuit then why donít you put your legal claim to the test. I suspect you will lose that case but you are making claims that arenít supported. Your ADA claims are ridiculous. Is United supposed to administer an oral test because someone isnít smart enough to read and understand the question?

Sorry my friend but you are barking up the wrong tree. Go find another job/carrier. You just donít fit in at UAL. Deal with it.

Excargodog
11-25-2018, 02:08 PM
Demonstrate to who? If you have a lawsuit then why don’t you put your legal claim to the test. I suspect you will lose that case but you are making claims that aren’t supported. Your ADA claims are ridiculous. Is United supposed to administer an oral test because someone isn’t smart enough to read and understand the question?

Sorry my friend but you are barking up the wrong tree. Go find another job/carrier. You just don’t fit in at UAL. Deal with it.

As you may or may not know, the ADA was specifically changed after Sutton vs UAL precisely because UAL WON that one, and pretty much at the suggestion of the Supreme a court justices that ruled against the Sutton sisters.

https://dredf.org/publications/mayerson.html

The prior definition of disability was then changed to ...or PERCEIVED to have a disability to make it so that employers would have to justify with a business case analysis their disqualifications.

I'm not sure why you have all the animus directed at me personally for simply raising the question, or what your basis is for deciding that I would or would not fit in to UAL. (Because I hold a different opinion than you on an esoteric legal point? That seems rather weak.)

And no, I have no basis for a lawsuit against UAL because if you actually read what I wrote above, I HAVE NEVER TAKEN THE HOGAN. As anyone with even a modicum of understanding of the law would realize, that means I personally woukd not have standing to sue.

But why are YOU so rabid about the Hogan? Is your 401k entirely invested in stock in the Hogan company? If so, that's extremely ill-advised. One adverse court ruling could wipe it out.

PDRit
11-25-2018, 03:40 PM
As you may or may not know, the ADA was specifically changed after Sutton vs UAL precisely because UAL WON that one, and pretty much at the suggestion of the Supreme a court justices that ruled against the Sutton sisters.

https://dredf.org/publications/mayerson.html

The prior definition of disability was then changed to ...or PERCEIVED to have a disability to make it so that employers would have to justify with a business case analysis their disqualifications.

I'm not sure why you have all the animus directed at me personally for simply raising the question, or what your basis is for deciding that I would or would not fit in to UAL. (Because I hold a different opinion than you on an esoteric legal point? That seems rather weak.)

And no, I have no basis for a lawsuit against UAL because if you actually read what I wrote above, I HAVE NEVER TAKEN THE HOGAN. As anyone with even a modicum of understanding of the law would realize, that means I personally woukd not have standing to sue.

But why are YOU so rabid about the Hogan? Is your 401k entirely invested in stock in the Hogan company? If so, that's extremely ill-advised. One adverse court ruling could wipe it out.


The SCOTUS make up has changed a bit since that ruling. What makes you think any ADA bias claim could be taken to the Supreme Court again?

What exactly is your complaint about the disability that would prevent you from being successful in the Hogan?

You claimed UAL was not hiring a varied group of pilots and the numbers donít find that to be true. Our flight ops management make up disproves your theory.

Why is it so important to you if you havenít taken the test and failed?

You ask why I care? Because I know based on your writings and opinions I would not want to sit next to you on a 4 day trip. Having extreme views in this profession is not good for CRM. Youíve shown you have issues and canít let something go. Have to have the last word and are on a tangent that doesnít correlate to normal or everyday thinking. Donít think there is a hiring committee anywhere that embraces what your are selling.



Why



Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1