Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations to a Hearing-Impaired Candidate in a Public Corporation Interview is Discrimination
-Recommendation to the Minister of Health and Welfare to Amend the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities-
□ The National Human Rights Commission of Korea (hereafter referred to as ‘NHRCK’) made the following recommendations on November 18, 2024, to the president of ○○○○ Corporation (hereafter referred to as “the Respondent”) and the Minister of Health and Welfare:
○ To the Respondent: Establish measures to prevent recurrence, such as adding provisions for accommodations tailored to different types of disabilities in interview exams for candidates with disabilities to relevant guidelines, ensuring they can take recruitment exams under conditions equal to those of other candidates.
○ To the Minister of Health and Welfare: Amend Article 28 of the <Enforcement Decree of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities> to include all workplaces subject to mandatory employment quotas for persons with disabilities under Article 28(2) of the <Act on the Employment Promotion and Vocational Rehabilitation of Persons with Disabilities> as entities required to provide accommodations to candidates with disabilities.
□ The complainant, who is hard of hearing, passed the written test for the 2023 open recruitment of ○○○○ Corporation (hereafter referred to as “the Respondent Corporation”) under the disability recruitment track for vehicle-related roles. The complainant requested accommodations, such as a scribe, for the interview scheduled on February 8, 2024. However, the Respondent Corporation refused this request, leading the complainant to withdraw from the interview process. The complainant subsequently filed a petition with NHRCK.
The Respondent stated that it is not obligated to provide accommodations under Article 28 of the <Enforcement Decree of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities>, which applies only to state and local government institutions and public institutions. The respondent also added that it has been providing accommodations tailored to different types of disabilities for written tests since 2021 nonetheless. Accommodations such as scribes or assistants during interviews were deemed impractical, but it offered alternative measures, such as adjusting seating arrangements and conducting prior training for interviewers regarding candidates with hearing impairments. The complainant, however, did not attend the interview. Since the disability recruitment track targets roles involving customer safety management, facility inspection and maintenance, day and night shift, and other tasks requiring physical capabilities, there are limits to the accommodations that can be provided.
The NHRCK’s Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Subcommittee Chair: Commissioner Nam Gyu-seon) found that the purpose of providing accommodations for candidates with disabilities under the <Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities> is to ensure their participation in recruitment processes under conditions equal to those of other candidates. While Article 28 of the <Enforcement Decree of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities> outlines the scope of entities obligated to provide accommodations, the Respondent Corporation, as a local public enterprise, should still provide reasonable accommodations to enable candidates with disabilities to participate on equal terms with others, in line with the spirit of the law.
The Committee ruled that decisions about whether to provide accommodations during interviews should not depend on the job roles for which candidates are applying.
The Committee concluded that the Respondent’s failure to provide reasonable accommodations during the interview for the hearing-impaired complainant constitutes discrimination prohibited under Articles 4(1)(3) and 10(1) of the <Act on the Prohibition of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities, Remedy Against Infringement of Their Rights, etc.>
Moreover, the Committee noted that Article 28 of the <Enforcement Decree of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities> excluding local public enterprises, local corporations, and institutions funded or invested in by local governments from the list of entities obligated to provide accommodations creates the risk of neglecting the provision of accommodations during recruitment processes, potentially limiting job opportunities for candidates with disabilities, as demonstrated by this case.
□ The Commission recommended that:
- The Respondent Corporation establish measures to prevent recurrence
- The Minister of Health and Welfare amend Article 28 of the <Enforcement Decree of the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities>
