I read the other posts about accommodations and it's commonly accepted that VE's do not consider RA's in terms of competitive labor.  I am not sure where Sit vs Stand options would be considered an accommodation in all cases? I believe this topic has been covered before but it seems like there is a consensus, among VE's experienced in placing individuals into competitive or non-competitive labor, that Stand Sit, at will, is often exclusive of competitive labor.  However, many VE's, myself included, have provided jobs based on hypos that are between Sed and Light that require a SSO, for unskilled labor.  Therefore, it is important to clarify this.

SSR 83-12

Confidentiality Notice:  The information in this email may be confidential. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email or the information contained herein and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately via return email and delete this email from your system.

In addition to this, I have a several senior managers, in the financial service industry, whom work for larger institutions that confirm they regularly approve stand sit desks as part of routine business expenditures.  This is not due to ADA requests it is to better serve their employees over the years as research has shown the benefits of these desks, which are relatively regular components of workplaces in business.  Just as are ergonomic chairs and the such.  While these jobs may be semi to skilled and they are regional, they represent a significant sector of the labor market and this is an example where VE (or VS) testimony is crucial.  What was seen as an accommodation in years past may not be in today's labor market.  These relationships, that exist between VR professionals and employers, are significant and therefore we are not prohibited from testifying simply because we cannot assume other employers provide such options.

This is just one example of several industries that have made jobs more accessible, whether based on ADA guidelines (say ramps and handicap bathrooms) or adopted within industries to reduce the need to accommodate.

Joe

Confidentiality Notice:  The information in this email may be confidential. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email or the information contained herein and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately via return email and delete this email from your system.

I read the other posts about accommodations and it's commonly accepted that VE's do not consider RA's in terms of competitive labor.  I am not sure where Sit vs Stand options would be considered an accommodation in all cases? I believe this topic has been covered before but it seems like there is a consensus, among VE's experienced in placing individuals into competitive or non-competitive labor, that Stand Sit, at will, is often exclusive of competitive labor.  However, many VE's, myself included, have provided jobs based on hypos that are between Sed and Light that require a SSO, for unskilled labor.  Therefore, it is important to clarify this.

SSR 83-12

Confidentiality Notice:  The information in this email may be confidential. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email or the information contained herein and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately via return email and delete this email from your system.

Francois Paradis, M.A., CVE, CCVE, ICVE

Career Options

595 Mortimer Avenue

Toronto, ON

M4C 2J6

Tel: 416-565-4368

E-mail: francois@career-options.ca

Website: www.career-options.ca

"Vocational Evaluations for Better Career Options"

In addition to this, I have a several senior managers, in the financial service industry, whom work for larger institutions that confirm they regularly approve stand sit desks as part of routine business expenditures.  This is not due to ADA requests it is to better serve their employees over the years as research has shown the benefits of these desks, which are relatively regular components of workplaces in business.  Just as are ergonomic chairs and the such.  While these jobs may be semi to skilled and they are regional, they represent a significant sector of the labor market and this is an example where VE (or VS) testimony is crucial.  What was seen as an accommodation in years past may not be in today's labor market.  These relationships, that exist between VR professionals and employers, are significant and therefore we are not prohibited from testifying simply because we cannot assume other employers provide such options.

This is just one example of several industries that have made jobs more accessible, whether based on ADA guidelines (say ramps and handicap bathrooms) or adopted within industries to reduce the need to accommodate.

Joe

Confidentiality Notice:  The information in this email may be confidential. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email or the information contained herein and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately via return email and delete this email from your system.

I read the other posts about accommodations and it's commonly accepted that VE's do not consider RA's in terms of competitive labor.  I am not sure where Sit vs Stand options would be considered an accommodation in all cases? I believe this topic has been covered before but it seems like there is a consensus, among VE's experienced in placing individuals into competitive or non-competitive labor, that Stand Sit, at will, is often exclusive of competitive labor.  However, many VE's, myself included, have provided jobs based on hypos that are between Sed and Light that require a SSO, for unskilled labor.  Therefore, it is important to clarify this.

SSR 83-12

Confidentiality Notice:  The information in this email may be confidential. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email or the information contained herein and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately via return email and delete this email from your system.

Francois Paradis, M.A., CVE, CCVE, ICVE

Career Options

595 Mortimer Avenue

Toronto, ON

M4C 2J6

Tel: 416-565-4368

E-mail: francois@career-options.ca

Website: www.career-options.ca

"Vocational Evaluations for Better Career Options"

In addition to this, I have a several senior managers, in the financial service industry, whom work for larger institutions that confirm they regularly approve stand sit desks as part of routine business expenditures.  This is not due to ADA requests it is to better serve their employees over the years as research has shown the benefits of these desks, which are relatively regular components of workplaces in business.  Just as are ergonomic chairs and the such.  While these jobs may be semi to skilled and they are regional, they represent a significant sector of the labor market and this is an example where VE (or VS) testimony is crucial.  What was seen as an accommodation in years past may not be in today's labor market.  These relationships, that exist between VR professionals and employers, are significant and therefore we are not prohibited from testifying simply because we cannot assume other employers provide such options.

This is just one example of several industries that have made jobs more accessible, whether based on ADA guidelines (say ramps and handicap bathrooms) or adopted within industries to reduce the need to accommodate.

Joe

Confidentiality Notice:  The information in this email may be confidential. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email or the information contained herein and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately via return email and delete this email from your system.

I read the other posts about accommodations and it's commonly accepted that VE's do not consider RA's in terms of competitive labor.  I am not sure where Sit vs Stand options would be considered an accommodation in all cases? I believe this topic has been covered before but it seems like there is a consensus, among VE's experienced in placing individuals into competitive or non-competitive labor, that Stand Sit, at will, is often exclusive of competitive labor.  However, many VE's, myself included, have provided jobs based on hypos that are between Sed and Light that require a SSO, for unskilled labor.  Therefore, it is important to clarify this.

SSR 83-12

Confidentiality Notice:  The information in this email may be confidential. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email or the information contained herein and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately via return email and delete this email from your system.

Francois Paradis, M.A., CVE, CCVE, ICVE

Career Options

595 Mortimer Avenue

Toronto, ON

M4C 2J6

Tel: 416-565-4368

E-mail: francois@career-options.ca

Website: www.career-options.ca

"Vocational Evaluations for Better Career Options"

In addition to this, I have a several senior managers, in the financial service industry, whom work for larger institutions that confirm they regularly approve stand sit desks as part of routine business expenditures.  This is not due to ADA requests it is to better serve their employees over the years as research has shown the benefits of these desks, which are relatively regular components of workplaces in business.  Just as are ergonomic chairs and the such.  While these jobs may be semi to skilled and they are regional, they represent a significant sector of the labor market and this is an example where VE (or VS) testimony is crucial.  What was seen as an accommodation in years past may not be in today's labor market.  These relationships, that exist between VR professionals and employers, are significant and therefore we are not prohibited from testifying simply because we cannot assume other employers provide such options.

This is just one example of several industries that have made jobs more accessible, whether based on ADA guidelines (say ramps and handicap bathrooms) or adopted within industries to reduce the need to accommodate.

Joe

Confidentiality Notice:  The information in this email may be confidential. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email or the information contained herein and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately via return email and delete this email from your system.

I read the other posts about accommodations and it's commonly accepted that VE's do not consider RA's in terms of competitive labor.  I am not sure where Sit vs Stand options would be considered an accommodation in all cases? I believe this topic has been covered before but it seems like there is a consensus, among VE's experienced in placing individuals into competitive or non-competitive labor, that Stand Sit, at will, is often exclusive of competitive labor.  However, many VE's, myself included, have provided jobs based on hypos that are between Sed and Light that require a SSO, for unskilled labor.  Therefore, it is important to clarify this.

SSR 83-12

Confidentiality Notice:  The information in this email may be confidential. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email or the information contained herein and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately via return email and delete this email from your system.

Jeff, with all due respect, I would like to address both your comments and Ken's comments together.  Yes, ADA is the law of the land and yes, it applies to all businesses with more than 15 employees.  However, just because it is the law of the land does not mean all employers follow the law, implement the law or even interpret it the same way.  What one employer will consider a reasonable accommodation, another may not be willing or consider.  Instead, another employer may believe what is requested  is too much of a hardship, even though there is a higher hurdle to prove "undue hardship" if challenged in a lawsuit.  More to the point, yes we can do labor market research utilizing all available government data, making calls to employers and or doing on-site job analyses and discussing accommodations and willingness to accommodate  different types of situations pertinent to a specific case, e.g., job placement or for other venues.  However, it is such an employer specific issue that an accommodation  typically would not apply in general.  Sit-stand option is one of the few and even that gets challenged.  We can utilize ORS for sit-stand option at will, and integrate that data with our own professional experience for a sit-stand option.   However, not all companies will allow a sit-stand desk even in 2022! (2023 just started so not including)  We can use professional experience as to whether or not a limitation would be considered an accommodation, in general,  but cannot generalize our experiences throughout the nation for purpose of SSA adjudication.  It is just too employer specific.  I would have to agree with Ken's and other prior posts referencing SSA rules on this issue.  'tis one thing for job placement, and another for SSA!   Sherry

Jeff, with all due respect, I would like to address both your comments and Ken's comments together.  Yes, ADA is the law of the land and yes, it applies to all businesses with more than 15 employees.  However, just because it is the law of the land does not mean all employers follow the law, implement the law or even interpret it the same way.  What one employer will consider a reasonable accommodation, another may not be willing or consider.  Instead, another employer may believe what is requested  is too much of a hardship, even though there is a higher hurdle to prove "undue hardship" if challenged in a lawsuit.  More to the point, yes we can do labor market research utilizing all available government data, making calls to employers and or doing on-site job analyses and discussing accommodations and willingness to accommodate  different types of situations pertinent to a specific case, e.g., job placement or for other venues.  However, it is such an employer specific issue that an accommodation  typically would not apply in general.  Sit-stand option is one of the few and even that gets challenged.  We can utilize ORS for sit-stand option at will, and integrate that data with our own professional experience for a sit-stand option.   However, not all companies will allow a sit-stand desk even in 2022! (2023 just started so not including)  We can use professional experience as to whether or not a limitation would be considered an accommodation, in general,  but cannot generalize our experiences throughout the nation for purpose of SSA adjudication.  It is just too employer specific.  I would have to agree with Ken's and other prior posts referencing SSA rules on this issue.  'tis one thing for job placement, and another for SSA!   Sherry

Jeff, with all due respect, I would like to address both your comments and Ken's comments together.  Yes, ADA is the law of the land and yes, it applies to all businesses with more than 15 employees.  However, just because it is the law of the land does not mean all employers follow the law, implement the law or even interpret it the same way.  What one employer will consider a reasonable accommodation, another may not be willing or consider.  Instead, another employer may believe what is requested  is too much of a hardship, even though there is a higher hurdle to prove "undue hardship" if challenged in a lawsuit.  More to the point, yes we can do labor market research utilizing all available government data, making calls to employers and or doing on-site job analyses and discussing accommodations and willingness to accommodate  different types of situations pertinent to a specific case, e.g., job placement or for other venues.  However, it is such an employer specific issue that an accommodation  typically would not apply in general.  Sit-stand option is one of the few and even that gets challenged.  We can utilize ORS for sit-stand option at will, and integrate that data with our own professional experience for a sit-stand option.   However, not all companies will allow a sit-stand desk even in 2022! (2023 just started so not including)  We can use professional experience as to whether or not a limitation would be considered an accommodation, in general,  but cannot generalize our experiences throughout the nation for purpose of SSA adjudication.  It is just too employer specific.  I would have to agree with Ken's and other prior posts referencing SSA rules on this issue.  'tis one thing for job placement, and another for SSA!   Sherry

Hmmm....Firstly, the undue hardship is not nearly used as a reason for denying an RA request.  The most common is providing "alternative" accommodations that are often much less limiting to the employer and minimally helpful to the employee.  Example, employee wants telework several days a week to assist with "distractions" in a work setting.  The employer offers "noise cancelling headphones" and use of more private office space.  And many managers, not ADA reps, have final say in granting of a RA request.  Secondly, I completely disagree with the Stand Sit option opinion, whether a stand sit desk is provided (which many are).  I can attest personally, having worked in a financial service setting over a decade ago where stand sit desks were common.  As I stated, I have financial service managers that have informed me they regularly provide these desks as part of their normal budget.  We are talking State Street, BNY Mellon, and JP Morgan folks.  If these aren't industry setters then who are?  It matters not if this is in one region as afterall, I don't know many VE's that provide their testimony based on working around the country.  We base our experience on where we work so, again, I disagree about the "employer specific" rationale for not being able to provide testimony.  We also have job erosion formulas for these situations as well.  I have not once gotten push back from an ALJ after they reviewed my qualifications and testimony.  I  have, however, gotten push back on the very few occasions I have referenced ORS data which, if anyone saw Jeff T's presentation (in person or post order) should cringe at any notion that ORS data is being used as the primary reporting tool.  HR professionals and Employers trying to protect their interests are not the most valid and economists don't place individuals into jobs.  No offense to those Economists as they are helpful in the equation but not for determining RFC/MFC assessments.  Case in point, Heavy Drivers at Sedentary and skilled SVP's???  That alone would steer me away from relying on that data source until it is finalized.

I also disagree that hypo's differ from the real world of work.  Once you disregard RA's then I feel pretty confident that my testimony of answering hypo's fits the way I view job requirements and tolerations.

To me, the issue is with employers following ADA guidelines and not only having ADA coordinators but trained coordinators (many state employees here in MA simply volunteer for the ADA role).  More so, having ADA coordinators have the final say in granting RA's which currently are at the discretion of managers who are not trained in the ADA as they should be and whose primary objective is to maximize profit (unrelated to undue hardship).

Thanks again to Jeff T for his excellent presentation and continued efforts to educate all of us in the VE field.

Joe

Joseph Young, MS, CRC, LRC

Forensic Vocational Counselor

Joseph Young Consulting

4209 Taylor Pond Lane

Bedford, MA 01730

Phone: 781-363-2689 / Fax: 508-445-8946

Email: Joseph.Young72@outlook.com

Confidentiality Notice:  The information in this email may be confidential. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email or the information contained herein and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately via return email and delete this email from your system.

Jeff, with all due respect, I would like to address both your comments and Ken's comments together.  Yes, ADA is the law of the land and yes, it applies to all businesses with more than 15 employees.  However, just because it is the law of the land does not mean all employers follow the law, implement the law or even interpret it the same way.  What one employer will consider a reasonable accommodation, another may not be willing or consider.  Instead, another employer may believe what is requested  is too much of a hardship, even though there is a higher hurdle to prove "undue hardship" if challenged in a lawsuit.  More to the point, yes we can do labor market research utilizing all available government data, making calls to employers and or doing on-site job analyses and discussing accommodations and willingness to accommodate  different types of situations pertinent to a specific case, e.g., job placement or for other venues.  However, it is such an employer specific issue that an accommodation  typically would not apply in general.  Sit-stand option is one of the few and even that gets challenged.  We can utilize ORS for sit-stand option at will, and integrate that data with our own professional experience for a sit-stand option.   However, not all companies will allow a sit-stand desk even in 2022! (2023 just started so not including)  We can use professional experience as to whether or not a limitation would be considered an accommodation, in general,  but cannot generalize our experiences throughout the nation for purpose of SSA adjudication.  It is just too employer specific.  I would have to agree with Ken's and other prior posts referencing SSA rules on this issue.  'tis one thing for job placement, and another for SSA!   Sherry

Hmmm....Firstly, the undue hardship is not nearly used as a reason for denying an RA request.  The most common is providing "alternative" accommodations that are often much less limiting to the employer and minimally helpful to the employee.  Example, employee wants telework several days a week to assist with "distractions" in a work setting.  The employer offers "noise cancelling headphones" and use of more private office space.  And many managers, not ADA reps, have final say in granting of a RA request.  Secondly, I completely disagree with the Stand Sit option opinion, whether a stand sit desk is provided (which many are).  I can attest personally, having worked in a financial service setting over a decade ago where stand sit desks were common.  As I stated, I have financial service managers that have informed me they regularly provide these desks as part of their normal budget.  We are talking State Street, BNY Mellon, and JP Morgan folks.  If these aren't industry setters then who are?  It matters not if this is in one region as afterall, I don't know many VE's that provide their testimony based on working around the country.  We base our experience on where we work so, again, I disagree about the "employer specific" rationale for not being able to provide testimony.  We also have job erosion formulas for these situations as well.  I have not once gotten push back from an ALJ after they reviewed my qualifications and testimony.  I  have, however, gotten push back on the very few occasions I have referenced ORS data which, if anyone saw Jeff T's presentation (in person or post order) should cringe at any notion that ORS data is being used as the primary reporting tool.  HR professionals and Employers trying to protect their interests are not the most valid and economists don't place individuals into jobs.  No offense to those Economists as they are helpful in the equation but not for determining RFC/MFC assessments.  Case in point, Heavy Drivers at Sedentary and skilled SVP's???  That alone would steer me away from relying on that data source until it is finalized.

I also disagree that hypo's differ from the real world of work.  Once you disregard RA's then I feel pretty confident that my testimony of answering hypo's fits the way I view job requirements and tolerations.

To me, the issue is with employers following ADA guidelines and not only having ADA coordinators but trained coordinators (many state employees here in MA simply volunteer for the ADA role).  More so, having ADA coordinators have the final say in granting RA's which currently are at the discretion of managers who are not trained in the ADA as they should be and whose primary objective is to maximize profit (unrelated to undue hardship).

Thanks again to Jeff T for his excellent presentation and continued efforts to educate all of us in the VE field.

Joe

Joseph Young, MS, CRC, LRC

Forensic Vocational Counselor

Joseph Young Consulting

4209 Taylor Pond Lane

Bedford, MA 01730

Phone: 781-363-2689 / Fax: 508-445-8946

Email: Joseph.Young72@outlook.com

Confidentiality Notice:  The information in this email may be confidential. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email or the information contained herein and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately via return email and delete this email from your system.

Jeff, with all due respect, I would like to address both your comments and Ken's comments together.  Yes, ADA is the law of the land and yes, it applies to all businesses with more than 15 employees.  However, just because it is the law of the land does not mean all employers follow the law, implement the law or even interpret it the same way.  What one employer will consider a reasonable accommodation, another may not be willing or consider.  Instead, another employer may believe what is requested  is too much of a hardship, even though there is a higher hurdle to prove "undue hardship" if challenged in a lawsuit.  More to the point, yes we can do labor market research utilizing all available government data, making calls to employers and or doing on-site job analyses and discussing accommodations and willingness to accommodate  different types of situations pertinent to a specific case, e.g., job placement or for other venues.  However, it is such an employer specific issue that an accommodation  typically would not apply in general.  Sit-stand option is one of the few and even that gets challenged.  We can utilize ORS for sit-stand option at will, and integrate that data with our own professional experience for a sit-stand option.   However, not all companies will allow a sit-stand desk even in 2022! (2023 just started so not including)  We can use professional experience as to whether or not a limitation would be considered an accommodation, in general,  but cannot generalize our experiences throughout the nation for purpose of SSA adjudication.  It is just too employer specific.  I would have to agree with Ken's and other prior posts referencing SSA rules on this issue.  'tis one thing for job placement, and another for SSA!   Sherry

Yes, and my congratulating Jeff T for his efforts is industry wide and for his pointing out the fact RA's apply to certain sized companies.  I don't believe I am the one whom opened up the SSVE topic to prove some point but I agree, SSVE issues should primarily be relegated to another section.  However, when they are introduced into another section and are, IMO, not accurate, hat opens up a forum.  If one chooses to follow then so be it. 

Thanks again Jeff.

Joe

Confidentiality Notice:  The information in this email may be confidential. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email or the information contained herein and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately via return email and delete this email from your system.

Hmmm....Firstly, the undue hardship is not nearly used as a reason for denying an RA request.  The most common is providing "alternative" accommodations that are often much less limiting to the employer and minimally helpful to the employee.  Example, employee wants telework several days a week to assist with "distractions" in a work setting.  The employer offers "noise cancelling headphones" and use of more private office space.  And many managers, not ADA reps, have final say in granting of a RA request.  Secondly, I completely disagree with the Stand Sit option opinion, whether a stand sit desk is provided (which many are).  I can attest personally, having worked in a financial service setting over a decade ago where stand sit desks were common.  As I stated, I have financial service managers that have informed me they regularly provide these desks as part of their normal budget.  We are talking State Street, BNY Mellon, and JP Morgan folks.  If these aren't industry setters then who are?  It matters not if this is in one region as afterall, I don't know many VE's that provide their testimony based on working around the country.  We base our experience on where we work so, again, I disagree about the "employer specific" rationale for not being able to provide testimony.  We also have job erosion formulas for these situations as well.  I have not once gotten push back from an ALJ after they reviewed my qualifications and testimony.  I  have, however, gotten push back on the very few occasions I have referenced ORS data which, if anyone saw Jeff T's presentation (in person or post order) should cringe at any notion that ORS data is being used as the primary reporting tool.  HR professionals and Employers trying to protect their interests are not the most valid and economists don't place individuals into jobs.  No offense to those Economists as they are helpful in the equation but not for determining RFC/MFC assessments.  Case in point, Heavy Drivers at Sedentary and skilled SVP's???  That alone would steer me away from relying on that data source until it is finalized.

I also disagree that hypo's differ from the real world of work.  Once you disregard RA's then I feel pretty confident that my testimony of answering hypo's fits the way I view job requirements and tolerations.

To me, the issue is with employers following ADA guidelines and not only having ADA coordinators but trained coordinators (many state employees here in MA simply volunteer for the ADA role).  More so, having ADA coordinators have the final say in granting RA's which currently are at the discretion of managers who are not trained in the ADA as they should be and whose primary objective is to maximize profit (unrelated to undue hardship).

Thanks again to Jeff T for his excellent presentation and continued efforts to educate all of us in the VE field.

Joe

Joseph Young, MS, CRC, LRC

Forensic Vocational Counselor

Joseph Young Consulting

4209 Taylor Pond Lane

Bedford, MA 01730

Phone: 781-363-2689 / Fax: 508-445-8946

Email: Joseph.Young72@outlook.com

Confidentiality Notice:  The information in this email may be confidential. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email or the information contained herein and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately via return email and delete this email from your system.

Jeff, with all due respect, I would like to address both your comments and Ken's comments together.  Yes, ADA is the law of the land and yes, it applies to all businesses with more than 15 employees.  However, just because it is the law of the land does not mean all employers follow the law, implement the law or even interpret it the same way.  What one employer will consider a reasonable accommodation, another may not be willing or consider.  Instead, another employer may believe what is requested  is too much of a hardship, even though there is a higher hurdle to prove "undue hardship" if challenged in a lawsuit.  More to the point, yes we can do labor market research utilizing all available government data, making calls to employers and or doing on-site job analyses and discussing accommodations and willingness to accommodate  different types of situations pertinent to a specific case, e.g., job placement or for other venues.  However, it is such an employer specific issue that an accommodation  typically would not apply in general.  Sit-stand option is one of the few and even that gets challenged.  We can utilize ORS for sit-stand option at will, and integrate that data with our own professional experience for a sit-stand option.   However, not all companies will allow a sit-stand desk even in 2022! (2023 just started so not including)  We can use professional experience as to whether or not a limitation would be considered an accommodation, in general,  but cannot generalize our experiences throughout the nation for purpose of SSA adjudication.  It is just too employer specific.  I would have to agree with Ken's and other prior posts referencing SSA rules on this issue.  'tis one thing for job placement, and another for SSA!   Sherry

Yes, and my congratulating Jeff T for his efforts is industry wide and for his pointing out the fact RA's apply to certain sized companies.  I don't believe I am the one whom opened up the SSVE topic to prove some point but I agree, SSVE issues should primarily be relegated to another section.  However, when they are introduced into another section and are, IMO, not accurate, hat opens up a forum.  If one chooses to follow then so be it. 

Thanks again Jeff.

Joe

Confidentiality Notice:  The information in this email may be confidential. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email or the information contained herein and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately via return email and delete this email from your system.

Hmmm....Firstly, the undue hardship is not nearly used as a reason for denying an RA request.  The most common is providing "alternative" accommodations that are often much less limiting to the employer and minimally helpful to the employee.  Example, employee wants telework several days a week to assist with "distractions" in a work setting.  The employer offers "noise cancelling headphones" and use of more private office space.  And many managers, not ADA reps, have final say in granting of a RA request.  Secondly, I completely disagree with the Stand Sit option opinion, whether a stand sit desk is provided (which many are).  I can attest personally, having worked in a financial service setting over a decade ago where stand sit desks were common.  As I stated, I have financial service managers that have informed me they regularly provide these desks as part of their normal budget.  We are talking State Street, BNY Mellon, and JP Morgan folks.  If these aren't industry setters then who are?  It matters not if this is in one region as afterall, I don't know many VE's that provide their testimony based on working around the country.  We base our experience on where we work so, again, I disagree about the "employer specific" rationale for not being able to provide testimony.  We also have job erosion formulas for these situations as well.  I have not once gotten push back from an ALJ after they reviewed my qualifications and testimony.  I  have, however, gotten push back on the very few occasions I have referenced ORS data which, if anyone saw Jeff T's presentation (in person or post order) should cringe at any notion that ORS data is being used as the primary reporting tool.  HR professionals and Employers trying to protect their interests are not the most valid and economists don't place individuals into jobs.  No offense to those Economists as they are helpful in the equation but not for determining RFC/MFC assessments.  Case in point, Heavy Drivers at Sedentary and skilled SVP's???  That alone would steer me away from relying on that data source until it is finalized.

I also disagree that hypo's differ from the real world of work.  Once you disregard RA's then I feel pretty confident that my testimony of answering hypo's fits the way I view job requirements and tolerations.

To me, the issue is with employers following ADA guidelines and not only having ADA coordinators but trained coordinators (many state employees here in MA simply volunteer for the ADA role).  More so, having ADA coordinators have the final say in granting RA's which currently are at the discretion of managers who are not trained in the ADA as they should be and whose primary objective is to maximize profit (unrelated to undue hardship).

Thanks again to Jeff T for his excellent presentation and continued efforts to educate all of us in the VE field.

Joe

Joseph Young, MS, CRC, LRC

Forensic Vocational Counselor

Joseph Young Consulting

4209 Taylor Pond Lane

Bedford, MA 01730

Phone: 781-363-2689 / Fax: 508-445-8946

Email: Joseph.Young72@outlook.com

Confidentiality Notice:  The information in this email may be confidential. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email or the information contained herein and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately via return email and delete this email from your system.

Jeff, with all due respect, I would like to address both your comments and Ken's comments together.  Yes, ADA is the law of the land and yes, it applies to all businesses with more than 15 employees.  However, just because it is the law of the land does not mean all employers follow the law, implement the law or even interpret it the same way.  What one employer will consider a reasonable accommodation, another may not be willing or consider.  Instead, another employer may believe what is requested  is too much of a hardship, even though there is a higher hurdle to prove "undue hardship" if challenged in a lawsuit.  More to the point, yes we can do labor market research utilizing all available government data, making calls to employers and or doing on-site job analyses and discussing accommodations and willingness to accommodate  different types of situations pertinent to a specific case, e.g., job placement or for other venues.  However, it is such an employer specific issue that an accommodation  typically would not apply in general.  Sit-stand option is one of the few and even that gets challenged.  We can utilize ORS for sit-stand option at will, and integrate that data with our own professional experience for a sit-stand option.   However, not all companies will allow a sit-stand desk even in 2022! (2023 just started so not including)  We can use professional experience as to whether or not a limitation would be considered an accommodation, in general,  but cannot generalize our experiences throughout the nation for purpose of SSA adjudication.  It is just too employer specific.  I would have to agree with Ken's and other prior posts referencing SSA rules on this issue.  'tis one thing for job placement, and another for SSA!   Sherry

Yes, and my congratulating Jeff T for his efforts is industry wide and for his pointing out the fact RA's apply to certain sized companies.  I don't believe I am the one whom opened up the SSVE topic to prove some point but I agree, SSVE issues should primarily be relegated to another section.  However, when they are introduced into another section and are, IMO, not accurate, hat opens up a forum.  If one chooses to follow then so be it. 

Thanks again Jeff.

Joe

Confidentiality Notice:  The information in this email may be confidential. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email or the information contained herein and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately via return email and delete this email from your system.

Hmmm....Firstly, the undue hardship is not nearly used as a reason for denying an RA request.  The most common is providing "alternative" accommodations that are often much less limiting to the employer and minimally helpful to the employee.  Example, employee wants telework several days a week to assist with "distractions" in a work setting.  The employer offers "noise cancelling headphones" and use of more private office space.  And many managers, not ADA reps, have final say in granting of a RA request.  Secondly, I completely disagree with the Stand Sit option opinion, whether a stand sit desk is provided (which many are).  I can attest personally, having worked in a financial service setting over a decade ago where stand sit desks were common.  As I stated, I have financial service managers that have informed me they regularly provide these desks as part of their normal budget.  We are talking State Street, BNY Mellon, and JP Morgan folks.  If these aren't industry setters then who are?  It matters not if this is in one region as afterall, I don't know many VE's that provide their testimony based on working around the country.  We base our experience on where we work so, again, I disagree about the "employer specific" rationale for not being able to provide testimony.  We also have job erosion formulas for these situations as well.  I have not once gotten push back from an ALJ after they reviewed my qualifications and testimony.  I  have, however, gotten push back on the very few occasions I have referenced ORS data which, if anyone saw Jeff T's presentation (in person or post order) should cringe at any notion that ORS data is being used as the primary reporting tool.  HR professionals and Employers trying to protect their interests are not the most valid and economists don't place individuals into jobs.  No offense to those Economists as they are helpful in the equation but not for determining RFC/MFC assessments.  Case in point, Heavy Drivers at Sedentary and skilled SVP's???  That alone would steer me away from relying on that data source until it is finalized.

I also disagree that hypo's differ from the real world of work.  Once you disregard RA's then I feel pretty confident that my testimony of answering hypo's fits the way I view job requirements and tolerations.

To me, the issue is with employers following ADA guidelines and not only having ADA coordinators but trained coordinators (many state employees here in MA simply volunteer for the ADA role).  More so, having ADA coordinators have the final say in granting RA's which currently are at the discretion of managers who are not trained in the ADA as they should be and whose primary objective is to maximize profit (unrelated to undue hardship).

Thanks again to Jeff T for his excellent presentation and continued efforts to educate all of us in the VE field.

Joe

Joseph Young, MS, CRC, LRC

Forensic Vocational Counselor

Joseph Young Consulting

4209 Taylor Pond Lane

Bedford, MA 01730

Phone: 781-363-2689 / Fax: 508-445-8946

Email: Joseph.Young72@outlook.com

Confidentiality Notice:  The information in this email may be confidential. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email or the information contained herein and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately via return email and delete this email from your system.

Jeff, with all due respect, I would like to address both your comments and Ken's comments together.  Yes, ADA is the law of the land and yes, it applies to all businesses with more than 15 employees.  However, just because it is the law of the land does not mean all employers follow the law, implement the law or even interpret it the same way.  What one employer will consider a reasonable accommodation, another may not be willing or consider.  Instead, another employer may believe what is requested  is too much of a hardship, even though there is a higher hurdle to prove "undue hardship" if challenged in a lawsuit.  More to the point, yes we can do labor market research utilizing all available government data, making calls to employers and or doing on-site job analyses and discussing accommodations and willingness to accommodate  different types of situations pertinent to a specific case, e.g., job placement or for other venues.  However, it is such an employer specific issue that an accommodation  typically would not apply in general.  Sit-stand option is one of the few and even that gets challenged.  We can utilize ORS for sit-stand option at will, and integrate that data with our own professional experience for a sit-stand option.   However, not all companies will allow a sit-stand desk even in 2022! (2023 just started so not including)  We can use professional experience as to whether or not a limitation would be considered an accommodation, in general,  but cannot generalize our experiences throughout the nation for purpose of SSA adjudication.  It is just too employer specific.  I would have to agree with Ken's and other prior posts referencing SSA rules on this issue.  'tis one thing for job placement, and another for SSA!   Sherry

Yes, and my congratulating Jeff T for his efforts is industry wide and for his pointing out the fact RA's apply to certain sized companies.  I don't believe I am the one whom opened up the SSVE topic to prove some point but I agree, SSVE issues should primarily be relegated to another section.  However, when they are introduced into another section and are, IMO, not accurate, hat opens up a forum.  If one chooses to follow then so be it. 

Thanks again Jeff.

Joe

Confidentiality Notice:  The information in this email may be confidential. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email or the information contained herein and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately via return email and delete this email from your system.

Hmmm....Firstly, the undue hardship is not nearly used as a reason for denying an RA request.  The most common is providing "alternative" accommodations that are often much less limiting to the employer and minimally helpful to the employee.  Example, employee wants telework several days a week to assist with "distractions" in a work setting.  The employer offers "noise cancelling headphones" and use of more private office space.  And many managers, not ADA reps, have final say in granting of a RA request.  Secondly, I completely disagree with the Stand Sit option opinion, whether a stand sit desk is provided (which many are).  I can attest personally, having worked in a financial service setting over a decade ago where stand sit desks were common.  As I stated, I have financial service managers that have informed me they regularly provide these desks as part of their normal budget.  We are talking State Street, BNY Mellon, and JP Morgan folks.  If these aren't industry setters then who are?  It matters not if this is in one region as afterall, I don't know many VE's that provide their testimony based on working around the country.  We base our experience on where we work so, again, I disagree about the "employer specific" rationale for not being able to provide testimony.  We also have job erosion formulas for these situations as well.  I have not once gotten push back from an ALJ after they reviewed my qualifications and testimony.  I  have, however, gotten push back on the very few occasions I have referenced ORS data which, if anyone saw Jeff T's presentation (in person or post order) should cringe at any notion that ORS data is being used as the primary reporting tool.  HR professionals and Employers trying to protect their interests are not the most valid and economists don't place individuals into jobs.  No offense to those Economists as they are helpful in the equation but not for determining RFC/MFC assessments.  Case in point, Heavy Drivers at Sedentary and skilled SVP's???  That alone would steer me away from relying on that data source until it is finalized.

I also disagree that hypo's differ from the real world of work.  Once you disregard RA's then I feel pretty confident that my testimony of answering hypo's fits the way I view job requirements and tolerations.

To me, the issue is with employers following ADA guidelines and not only having ADA coordinators but trained coordinators (many state employees here in MA simply volunteer for the ADA role).  More so, having ADA coordinators have the final say in granting RA's which currently are at the discretion of managers who are not trained in the ADA as they should be and whose primary objective is to maximize profit (unrelated to undue hardship).

Thanks again to Jeff T for his excellent presentation and continued efforts to educate all of us in the VE field.

Joe

Joseph Young, MS, CRC, LRC

Forensic Vocational Counselor

Joseph Young Consulting

4209 Taylor Pond Lane

Bedford, MA 01730

Phone: 781-363-2689 / Fax: 508-445-8946

Email: Joseph.Young72@outlook.com

Confidentiality Notice:  The information in this email may be confidential. This email is intended to be reviewed only by the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, or copying of this email or the information contained herein and its attachments, if any, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately via return email and delete this email from your system.

Jeff, with all due respect, I would like to address both your comments and Ken's comments together.  Yes, ADA is the law of the land and yes, it applies to all businesses with more than 15 employees.  However, just because it is the law of the land does not mean all employers follow the law, implement the law or even interpret it the same way.  What one employer will consider a reasonable accommodation, another may not be willing or consider.  Instead, another employer may believe what is requested  is too much of a hardship, even though there is a higher hurdle to prove "undue hardship" if challenged in a lawsuit.  More to the point, yes we can do labor market research utilizing all available government data, making calls to employers and or doing on-site job analyses and discussing accommodations and willingness to accommodate  different types of situations pertinent to a specific case, e.g., job placement or for other venues.  However, it is such an employer specific issue that an accommodation  typically would not apply in general.  Sit-stand option is one of the few and even that gets challenged.  We can utilize ORS for sit-stand option at will, and integrate that data with our own professional experience for a sit-stand option.   However, not all companies will allow a sit-stand desk even in 2022! (2023 just started so not including)  We can use professional experience as to whether or not a limitation would be considered an accommodation, in general,  but cannot generalize our experiences throughout the nation for purpose of SSA adjudication.  It is just too employer specific.  I would have to agree with Ken's and other prior posts referencing SSA rules on this issue.  'tis one thing for job placement, and another for SSA!   Sherry