So I got a call at work from this guy recently. He seems to make it a habit of calling places and only saying ‘reasonable accommodation’ then lecturing you for not saying the 5 magic words he claims are required by law. (After 15 minutes my supervisor made me transfer the call to him) Is there any truth to the claim that it is a violation of someones civil rights to not respond to those 2 words with the right 5 words?
What are these five words even supposed to be?
No idea. I was supposed to know it seems.
The claim was simply that by him saying ‘reasonable accommodation’ that I was then legally required to respond with 5 particular words. I got the impression that he sits all day and makes these calls.
Maybe he’s OCD.
Your supervisor waited 15 minutes, before asking you to transfer the call? And did s/he know the 5 magic words?
Nope. Actually I was fine letting the guy go on. I finally got bored and asked what the boss wanted me to do.
Did you try:
KLAATU, BARADA, NECKtie… nectar… nickel? 
Heh. I’m not that worried about it, just was wondering if there was any kernel of truth to it.
No.
Cool. I didn’t really think there was, but was just curious enough to ask on here.
There is no ADA Title V.
Right, that’s why I said title 3. The claim was that under ADA title 3, if someone says on the phone to a business ‘reasonable accommodation’ that there are 5 words you are required to say back to them.
“Reasonable accommodation” is not even a complete sentence. I haven’t read ADA Title V, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say that not even the US Congress is dumb enough to enact a law that requires a specified verbal response whenever somebody chants a specified slogan.
In the rather celebrated case, Ash v. AoD, you don’t actually have to say every little tiny syllable; “basically” will do.
I’m not sure why, but I tried a Google search on this. I managed to find a similar rant in a blog. Reading through the absence of punctuation, the total lack of context, the stream-of-consciousness prose and the references to Secret Agents and hidden cameras, the point seems to be this:
If someone is disabled, but they do not have any visible disabilities, they should say “Reasonable Accommodation” before they say anything else. Any US citizen then has to respond with the five magic words "“What is your Reasonable Accommodation”. Failing to respond with those words is apparently illegal, a violation of the caller’s civil rights and makes them not a US citizen.
The source of this is an anonymous blogger who admits he has been arrested for Social Security fraud, recounting second-hand information received from a “Secret Service Agent for the Department of Homeland Security”.
So clearly this is legit legal advice.
From a law website
http://www.boardmanclark.com/reading-room/americans-with-disabilities-and-reasonable-accommodation-in-employment/
No “magic words” are required. The EEOC Guidance emphasizes a “plain English” request, and the employee “need not mention the ADA or use the phrase ‘reasonable accommodation.’”
From a Lawyer Blog
Magic words are not required by the ADA when it comes to requesting a reasonable accommodation
the 5 magic words are
“No Magic Words Are Required” / “Magic Words Are Not Required”
Ah, no. That’s not how it works.
I thought the five magic words were, “The Sorting Hat chooses Slytherin!”
Actually “reasonable accommodation” does shake some people up. I’ve been having some issues with my health insurance (thanks ACA) and I got a call from the insurance company. I was very busy at work and I asked the guy to speak with my office manager. He said it couldn’t be done that way.
So I ask to speak with his boss, but he said no. So I mentioned that I have difficulty with the phone due to my hearing disability and I asked why they couldn’t make a reasonable accommodation. Bingo. All was fixed.
Superstition works against superstitious people. A lot of people believe in the magic law-making power of the ADA, and respond accordingly when the magic words are invoked.
They’re not really magic, and the ADA actually doesn’t work that way, but if you can get that leverage against the weak-minded, why not use it?
OTOH, if you sincerely know better, you can’t reasonably be upset when someone else also doesn’t treat the non-magic as magical.