The most notable aspect of the process is that I inquired about whether I might need an accommodation during the skills test. I didn't know if aspects of the testing would need to be adjusted because of my disability. I emailed the in-house recruiting department and asked if someone could discuss the testing conditions to help me determine if I needed to request an accommodation. I received no response to my query. The next day, I left a phone message to the same effect for the department. I got no answer. I called again the following two days and left similar messages. I still received no answer. The day before the scheduled test, I called the main number at Uhlig and explained my situation. I asked if there was someone in human resources who could speak with me about my accommodation query. After being put on hold, I was informed that nobody was available to help me with my question. The person I spoke to neither provided me with contact information for someone with whom I could follow up, nor did she request my contact information so a representative of Uhlig could contact me. Subsequent to the conversation detailed above, I emailed the recruiting department again and stated that I had tried several times to connect with them so I could find out if I needed to request an accommodation for the test. I explained that, since I'd gotten no answer after repeated attempts to reach them over a period that spanned two weeks, I would need to postpone my testing date until that conversation could take place. I finally received a call from someone in the recruiting department. This individual seemed to not understand what "requesting an accommodation" means, though that is the specific language used in disability laws and by employers. For example, when I asked what equipment would be needed for the test, I was told there wasn't anything I needed to bring with me. I explained that what I meant by equipment was what equipment the tester would be using (e.g., the type of computer, the monitor and its resolution). I also asked about the conditions in the room itself. The individual I spoke with said it was a paper test and that anyone could take it. This individual's lack of disability accommodation awareness surprised me. Those with advanced arthritis, chronic pain syndromes, or limited use of limbs—just to name a few relevant disabilities—might not be able to take a paper test or perform well under those conditions. Uhlig’s belief that it has established a system which allows “anyone” to perform on the test when the conditions actually create a barrier for some applicants is problematic. Those with disabilities should not encounter barriers of any kind as part of the interview process. I related that I had been trying for days to have my questions about a potential accommodation addressed. I said that might be a process they want to look into so other applicants don't have the same difficulty making an accommodation request in the future. When I was met with defensiveness, I explained that, as a patient advocate, my concern was to help remove barriers for others with disabilities. I didn't want to see what had happened to me be a deterrent for anyone else. I conveyed that my suggestion stemmed from a desire to streamline the process for others and that I hoped the department and the company as a whole would welcome the feedback.