discgolfdc
Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio
I am an instructor in the Allied Health program at a local, for-profit proprietary trade school (you know, the kind that call themselves "colleges" but are actually the functional equivalent of 13th grade - You see them all the time in your local "Job News" paper under "Career Education"). I am formally trained as a chiropractor, but I am not currently practicing for personal reasons that in no way involve any wrongdoing, legal or otherwise.
I was hired in October as a full-time instructor based on my qualifications to teach in their program. I hold both Bachelor of Science (which, I was told, was the main qualifier) and, as mentioned, Doctor of Chiropractic degrees, both of which, of course, had to be verified by the employer school by requesting official transcripts. At the time of my hire, the employer school was accredited by a national agency, but was in the process of seeking an additional accreditation from another agency as well. Approximately three weeks into my employment, the school successfully completed the requirements for this additional accreditation.
It has recently come to the attention of the Allied Health instructors that, now that we are accredited by this second agency, the corporate office is going to require instructors to take and successfully pass the RMA (Registered Medical Assistant) examination administered at various times during the year by American Medical Technologists (AMT). Some instructors, who have been there longer than myself, have evidently been preparing themselves for this exam for a bit of time, now, and are gearing up to take this examination this weekend (yes, Thanksgiving weekend). The newer hires (myself included) are being given until the February 2010 administration of the test, but this requirement was never mentioned, verbally or in written format, at the time of my hire or as an "upcoming condition of continued employment." I (and a few other newer hires) were only informed of this impending requirement recently (and verbally) by one of the program's coordinators.
I was thinking to myself, "what a P.I.T.A." (Pain In The A--), but I guess I should probably look into preparing for this test. In doing some research into this test, I found that there is a lot of material that is truly outside the scope of what I teach (for which, quite frankly, I possess more advanced credentials than they're preparing to require). A whole lot of administrative stuff, billing and coding -- things that I just don't touch academically and for which I would never be called upon. Further research, however, turned up the little known fact that there are certain criteria that a candidate for this test must meet. Criteria concerning continuous employment as a medical assistant, criteria regarding graduation from an ABHES-accredited school (the agency that just granted us accreditation), etc. I thought that I, with my degrees and years of experience both as a medical assistant (prior to getting into chiropractic) and as an autonomous health care provider, should have no such problems meeting criteria, but upon discovery of what the criteria were, that confidence was quickly dashed.
I have been in contact with the administration of AMT to ask them whether or not, given my specific background, I would be eligible to sit for their February examination, as my employer is going to require it, and so far, the answer doesn't look good.
I also found it curious that certain instructors who hold a certification known as a CMA ("Certified Medical Assistant," not the same thing as or administered by the same organization as the RMA -- the CMA being the "Oldsmobile," the RMA being the "Mercedes-Benz") are being "grandfathered" in so as not to be required to obtain their RMA certification. I'd think this might raise the issue of inequity in employee treatment. I may be wrong.
My overall question, as you could imagine, involves whether or not it is lawful for my employer, AFTER the point of my hire, to require me to take an examination (as a seemingly new condition of continued employment) for which I may be ineligible to sit. I'd HAVE to imagine that there is some declaration in some area of labor law that would concern this topic and the probabilities for disposition of this matter. Regardless of the "improved" intentions of the corporate office, I was hired based on my qualifications at the time, and I would not be unwilling to take the test if I were eligible to sit for it.
Any constructive thoughts, input, and comments are appreciated.
Thank you in advance!
I am an instructor in the Allied Health program at a local, for-profit proprietary trade school (you know, the kind that call themselves "colleges" but are actually the functional equivalent of 13th grade - You see them all the time in your local "Job News" paper under "Career Education"). I am formally trained as a chiropractor, but I am not currently practicing for personal reasons that in no way involve any wrongdoing, legal or otherwise.
I was hired in October as a full-time instructor based on my qualifications to teach in their program. I hold both Bachelor of Science (which, I was told, was the main qualifier) and, as mentioned, Doctor of Chiropractic degrees, both of which, of course, had to be verified by the employer school by requesting official transcripts. At the time of my hire, the employer school was accredited by a national agency, but was in the process of seeking an additional accreditation from another agency as well. Approximately three weeks into my employment, the school successfully completed the requirements for this additional accreditation.
It has recently come to the attention of the Allied Health instructors that, now that we are accredited by this second agency, the corporate office is going to require instructors to take and successfully pass the RMA (Registered Medical Assistant) examination administered at various times during the year by American Medical Technologists (AMT). Some instructors, who have been there longer than myself, have evidently been preparing themselves for this exam for a bit of time, now, and are gearing up to take this examination this weekend (yes, Thanksgiving weekend). The newer hires (myself included) are being given until the February 2010 administration of the test, but this requirement was never mentioned, verbally or in written format, at the time of my hire or as an "upcoming condition of continued employment." I (and a few other newer hires) were only informed of this impending requirement recently (and verbally) by one of the program's coordinators.
I was thinking to myself, "what a P.I.T.A." (Pain In The A--), but I guess I should probably look into preparing for this test. In doing some research into this test, I found that there is a lot of material that is truly outside the scope of what I teach (for which, quite frankly, I possess more advanced credentials than they're preparing to require). A whole lot of administrative stuff, billing and coding -- things that I just don't touch academically and for which I would never be called upon. Further research, however, turned up the little known fact that there are certain criteria that a candidate for this test must meet. Criteria concerning continuous employment as a medical assistant, criteria regarding graduation from an ABHES-accredited school (the agency that just granted us accreditation), etc. I thought that I, with my degrees and years of experience both as a medical assistant (prior to getting into chiropractic) and as an autonomous health care provider, should have no such problems meeting criteria, but upon discovery of what the criteria were, that confidence was quickly dashed.
I have been in contact with the administration of AMT to ask them whether or not, given my specific background, I would be eligible to sit for their February examination, as my employer is going to require it, and so far, the answer doesn't look good.
I also found it curious that certain instructors who hold a certification known as a CMA ("Certified Medical Assistant," not the same thing as or administered by the same organization as the RMA -- the CMA being the "Oldsmobile," the RMA being the "Mercedes-Benz") are being "grandfathered" in so as not to be required to obtain their RMA certification. I'd think this might raise the issue of inequity in employee treatment. I may be wrong.
My overall question, as you could imagine, involves whether or not it is lawful for my employer, AFTER the point of my hire, to require me to take an examination (as a seemingly new condition of continued employment) for which I may be ineligible to sit. I'd HAVE to imagine that there is some declaration in some area of labor law that would concern this topic and the probabilities for disposition of this matter. Regardless of the "improved" intentions of the corporate office, I was hired based on my qualifications at the time, and I would not be unwilling to take the test if I were eligible to sit for it.
Any constructive thoughts, input, and comments are appreciated.
Thank you in advance!
Last edited: