I was working through a recruiter after being interviewed for a FED position (that's how they described it) for a shop where most programmers did at least some C# / full stack. During the interview, I clearly stated that I did not know C#, but had done (large amounts of) server-side Python and C, and would learn C# if desired.
I had intended to request a disability accommodation of 40 hours work per week, and yesterday my supervisor said that their chief client was mad and they wanted everybody to work "long hours." To quote a letter I sent the managing partner at my recruiter today:
I heard a bit more today. The team, in a meeting, acknowledged that management had asked for "more hours", and asked, "How much more?" And--this is the first time I've seen something like this happen--management refused to provide a number, saying, "If we say 10 hours, people will work ten hours and stop." (One of my colleagues said this was like saying, "Give me money," and when asked, "How much?" refused to give a number but just said, "Keep on giving me money and I'll tell you when it's enough.")
I explained that I had contacted my doctor for a formal letter of accommodation, and that there were serious health consequences possible for working that kind of hours. I also wrote,
Note: this is my own attempt to explain things, not simply a restatement of the laws:
My understanding of "reasonable accommodation" is modifying a change to a position (what would be asked by default) that will let an employee act and pursue a business's interests. Perhaps you've read Getting to Yes; I wrote a piece on interest-based negotiations in a friendly context at http://jonathanscorner.com/negotiation/ and talked about position-based and interest-based negotiations.
FWIW. This is largely personal opinion; a less opinion-based note is "Things go by a doctor's note."
This was after the managing partner read my original "I'm requesting accommodation" email to me, over the phone, word for word, at in a tone of voice I would consider the nonverbal equivalent of scare quotes, and said he was more or less clueless about what to do and asked who he should contact, e.g. the EEOC, to find out what to do with a request for accommodation. I stated that I didn't know but thought the EEOC would be good to contact, and said that usually people go by the doctor's note (I mentioned, wisely or not, one time where a boss tried to ran ramshod over my request for accommodation, and after I had said "40 hours is 40 hours," gave my work a severe indictment of professional incompetence until I pointed out that his requests were all either enhancements or a request to handle an ambiguity in the spec some other way, and then after that accused me of bad programming without ever volunteering a detail of what I'd done wrong, and then fired me).
That was this morning. This afternoon, he and the client's president announced that I was being termed, for cause, because I did not know C#. This much is of course true; I may have been using all unassigned time to read O'Reilly's "C# for experienced programmers in other languages" text, but I had been entirely transparent during the interview process and did not lead either recruiter or client to believe that I knew more C# than I in fact did.
What do I do from here?
And a related question: the contract stated that I owed two weeks notice, but the client did not know notice if I was termed for cause. Do I have any basis to say "I was transparent about my level of actual C# proficiency during the interview; not knowing C# is an excuse and you owe me two weeks' notice"?