Brian T. McMahon

Intersectionality and Disability Harassment: The Interactive Effects of Disability, Race, Age, and Gender

A possible interaction among the characteristics of disability, race, gender, and age was examined with respect to formal allegations of disability harassment. Using data from the National Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Research Project, the authors examined whether there was an interaction among disability, gender, age, race, and employer characteristics when considering the proportion of harassment versus other forms of discrimination allegations. Using Exhaustive Chi-Squared Automatic Interaction Detector (Exhaustive CHAID) analysis, the authors detected several interaction effects. They discovered unique clusters of characteristics that place certain groups at a very high and very low risk for experiencing disability harassment. The findings are discussed in the context of past and future research on intersectionality and workplace implications.

The impact of the Great Recession upon the unemployment of Americans with disabilities

Recent data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics allows assessment of the impact of the Great Recession on working age persons with disabilities in America. Following an overview of the nature and scope of the Great Recession, the labor market experiences of persons with and without disability are compared for 16 of the 22 months of its duration. Differences which favor those without disabilities were detected in the labor market activity rate, the official unemployment rate, and in the desire for work among those who have quit the workforce. These differences persist among subgroups based upon age and educational attainment. The level of educational attainment appears to not provide the same level of insulation from the consequences of labor market downturns for persons with disabilities as it does for persons without disabilities. Finally, the reasons for unemployment are quite different for persons with and without disabilities.

Workplace Discrimination Outcomes and Their Predictive Factors for Adults with Multiple Sclerosis.

Because employment is a significant predictor of the quality of life of people with disabilities (Rumrill, Roessler, & Fitzgerald, 2004; Viermo & Krause, 1998), discrimination in the workplace that interferes with successful job acquisition or retention is a serious matter. Unfortunately, this type of discrimination is all too prevalent. In a survey conducted by the National Organization on Disability (National Organization on Disability, 2004), one in five employed individuals with disabilities reported that they experienced discrimination in their efforts to work. This finding of one in five workers with disabilities translates into substantial numbers of Americans who do not have fair access to employment opportunities. For example, estimates based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau (Head & Baker, 2005) indicate that approximately 50 million Americans of workforce age have disabilities.

Hiring discrimination against people with disabilities under the ADA: characteristics of charging parties.

Introduction This article describes findings from a causal comparative study of the characteristics of Charging Parties who filed allegations of Hiring discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) between 1992 and 2005. Methods Charging Party Characteristics derived from 19,527 closed Hiring allegations are compared and contrasted to 259,680 closed allegations aggregated from six other prevalent forms of discrimination including Discharge and Constructive Discharge, Reasonable Accommodation, Disability Harassment and Intimidation, and Terms and Conditions of Employment. Tests of Proportion distributed as chi-square are used to form comparisons along a variety of factors including age, gender, impairment, and ethnicity. Results Most allegations of ADA job discrimination fall into the realm of job retention and career advancement as opposed to job acquisition. Hiring allegations, however, tend to be filed by Charging Parties who are disproportionately male, younger or older applicants, white, and coping with physical or sensory disabilities. Conclusion Prevailing theories about stigma suggest that negative attitudes are more prevalent toward persons with behavioral disabilities. However, this study provides clear evidence that one behavioral manifestation of negative attitudes, Hiring discrimination, is more often directed at persons with physical or sensory impairments. More outreach regarding ADA rights appears indicated for individuals who share the aforementioned characteristics.

Hiring Discrimination Against People with Disabilities Under the ADA: Characteristics of Employers

Introduction This article describes findings from a causal comparative study of the characteristics of employers against whom allegations of hiring discrimination were filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) between 1992 and 2005. Methods Employer characteristics derived from 19,527 closed Hiring allegations are compared and contrasted to 259,680 closed allegations aggregated from six other prevalent forms of discrimination including Discharge and Constructive Discharge, Reasonable Accommodation, Disability Harassment and Intimidation, and Terms and Conditions of Employment. Tests of Proportion distributed as chi-square are used to form comparisons along a variety of factors including industry classification, size of workforce, and location. Results As compared to non-hiring allegations, hiring allegations were more likely to be filed against employers with 15–100 employees, in the West U.S. Census track region, or in industries including educational services; public administration; transportation and warehousing; professional, scientific, and technical services; agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting; and construction. Conclusion More outreach regarding ADA responsibilities appears indicated for those employers who share the aforementioned characteristics.

The Relationship of Selected Supply-and Demand-Side Factors to Forms of Perceived Discrimination Among Adults With Multiple Sclerosis

Single-predictor and stepwise multinomial logistic regression analyses and an external validation were completed on 3,082 allegations of employment discrimination by adults with multiple sclerosis. Women filed two thirds of the allegations, and individuals between 31 and 50 made the vast majority of discrimination charges (73%). Allegations occurred most frequently in industries with the largest number of employees (501 or more). Results of the single-predictor multinomial logistic regression analyses identified gender and company size as the two predictors, findings that were mirrored in the main effects model developed through the stepwise multinomial logistic regression analyses. Women were more likely than men to allege discrimination related to harassment and intimidation rather than to discharge. Workers in the smallest companies were less likely than workers in the largest companies to allege discrimination regarding reasonable accommodation, working conditions, or employment benefits and more likely to allege discrimination related to discharge. Cross-validation results provided mixed support for the main effects model.

Epilepsy and workplace discrimination: population characteristics and trends.

This study investigates the nature of allegations of workplace discrimination made by job seekers and workers with epilepsy. Demographic characteristics of individuals making allegations were consistent with those of individuals with epilepsy nationwide. Approximately three-fourths of allegations were related to post-hire issues, such as discrimination in promotion and termination, disciplinary actions, and harassment. The lowest rate of merit allegation was related to discrimination in hiring. Comparison of merit allegations before and after the U.S. Supreme Courts Sutton decision revealed that claimants have had higher rates of success following the decision, suggesting that the Sutton decision has had no negative effect on claimants with epilepsy.

Drivers of Hiring Discrimination for Individuals with Disabilities

Introduction Hiring discrimination in the workplace is defined as failure or refusal by an employer to engage a qualified applicant as an employee due to the existence or consequence of disability. The specific intent of this study is to determine what differentiates an allegation (perception of discrimination) from an actual discriminatory event (Merit Resolution). Methods Researchers used a data-mining approach, the Chi-square Automatic Interaction Detector (CHAID), to examine 19,527 resolved allegations of hiring discrimination in order to differentiate between Merit Resolution and Non-Merit Resolution outcomes. Results CHAID analysis confirmed that hiring discrimination is a complex matter with a variety of influences. Primary among these is the age of the Charging Party, with younger applicants (16–34) prevailing in their allegations 34% of the time. Within this subgroup, the sequence of predictor variables involves the Charging Party’s impairment, followed by the Employer’s industry classification. Behavioral disabilities, even among the young, result in generally lower Merit Resolution rates in hiring discrimination. Conclusions Providers of training and technical assistance regarding hiring and disability may be able to adjust their services accordingly on the basis of findings such as these.

Workplace Discrimination and the Perception of Disability.

This article documents the employment discrimination experienced by Americans “regarded as” disabled (but not medically verified as such), using the Integrated Mission System of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Claimants who were perceived as disabled, as contrasted with those with documented disabilities, were more likely to file charges of discrimination based on the issues of discharge or hiring. Decisions by the EEOC in favor of claimants perceived to have disabilities disproportionately exceeded those in favor of claimants with documented disabilities. This finding lends support to the assertion that unconscious/implicit bias is persistent in the workplace.

A Comparison of EEOC Closures Involving Hiring Versus Other Prevalent Discrimination Issues Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

Introduction This article describes findings from a causal comparative study of the Merit Resolution rate for allegations of Hiring discrimination that were filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) between 1992 and 2005. An allegation is the Charging Party’s perception of discrimination, but a Merit Resolution is one in which the EEOC has determined that a discriminatory event did indeed occur. A Non-Merit Resolution is an allegation that is closed due to a technicality or lacks sufficient evidence to conclude that discrimination occurred. Merit favors the Charging Party; Non-Merit favors the Employer. Methods The Merit Resolution rate of 19,527 closed Hiring allegations is compared and contrasted to that of 259,680 allegations aggregated from six other prevalent forms of discrimination including Discharge and Constructive Discharge, Reasonable Accommodation, Disability Harassment and Intimidation, and Terms and Conditions of Employment. Tests of Proportion distributed as chi-square are used to form comparisons along a variety of subcategories of Merit and Non-Merit outcomes. Results The overall Merit Resolution rate for Hiring is 26% compared to Non-Hiring at 20.6%. Employers are less likely to settle claims of hiring discrimination without mediation, and less likely to accept the remedies recommended by the EEOC when hiring discrimination has been determined. Conclusion Hiring is not an unusual discrimination issue in that the overwhelming majority of allegations are still closed in favor of the Employer. However, it is counterintuitive that Hiring has a higher merit resolution rate than other prevalent issues. This finding contradicts the assumption that hiring is an “invisible process.” Considering that the EEOC makes merit determinations at a competitive rate, it is clear that hiring is sufficiently transparent.