David Lyons, MD at eBoss has some doubts:

"The vagueness of the mission for the new coalition is disturbing. Some of the examples people are throwing out as instances of discrimination could be seen as silly.

Some are saying recruiters are discriminating if they do not allow a space on applications to explain how a disability may have affected academic achievements. In other words, the lack of necessary qualifications should be ignored if you have a good excuse? Does this only apply to someone with a disability, or should it be extended to anyone who has a legitimate reason that they lack the suitable characteristics to make them an outstanding candidate for a given position?

It has even been posited that someone being physically unable to attend an interview should not disqualify them from consideration for an opening. Granted, there is a tiny percentage of positions that allow an employee to work completely from home, but the vast majority require the ability to travel to the workplace. Are recruiters discriminating when they protect clients by screening candidates who are unable to perform the job? Is this not one of the reasons for the existence of recruiters?

Beyond the definition of discrimination, the other problem with vagueness is proving that discrimination has occurred. In particularly egregious examples, the discrimination is obvious and there already exist legal options for addressing it. For anything less black-and-white, proving that discrimination has not occurred is impossible.

There are many quality candidates with disabilities. Any recruiter who fails to recognise this fact is doing a disservice to himself, the candidate, and the clients. Ensuring that these excellent workers are treated fairly is essential.

Like many worthy concepts, protecting the right of disabled workers to earn a living is a very good thing. The question remains whether the EFD coalition can actually enact positive change.