The young person specified that the interns would have incorporated the disabled vet’s situation into their arguments, if they had known. I assume that would have been something like, “An exception has been made to the policy for Employee X’s special needs. This demonstrates that the policy is arbitrary, and an exception should also be made for OUR special needs.”
Maybe, but an actual ADA disability carries a lot more weight than wanting to feel more relaxed. The law requires that “reasonable accommodations” be made for disabilities, and running shoes are more than reasonable accommodations for a veteran missing a leg. Management probably would have offered to amputate the leg from any intern who wanted to be allowed to wear casual shoes. Then they would have pointed out the clause in the interns’ applications where they acknowledged that they did not have a disability requiring that kind of accommodation, and shown them all the door anyway.
The other party who was granted dispensation from the company regarding the dress code should have been of no concern to these interns.
The idea that they were simply unwilling to follow clear instructions rendered them unfit for any further training/education because they failed to grasp the basic concept of authority and who holds it.