Search

Purpose: This study explores small businesses' knowledge base and practices concerning interviewing and hiring job candidates with disabilities, as they are not required to comply with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Methods: We first conducted 18 in-depth interviews with small business owners to explore their knowledge of the ADA, their practices surrounding hiring (for those with and without disabilities), and their sense of the best practices for how a candidate should navigate the interview and request for accommodations. Responses were then used to create a survey of an additional 110 small business owners. Results: Six themes arose from the interviews, illuminating the steep learning curve involved in each (1) hiring well, (2) the need to trust an employee's character as much as their skill set, (3) the need for an employee to fit within the small business's family-like environment, (4) the preference for job candidates to be transparent about their needs as early as possible, (5) the importance of personal experience with disability, and (6) the difficulty in obtaining precise information about the ADA. Survey responses supported the general findings of the interviews while also providing information about the relative rarity of encountering a job candidate with a disability. Conclusion: Hiring employees with disabilities is challenging for small businesses, and bias is difficult to avoid. The availability of clear information on how to comply with the ADA and other laws and practices would be welcome by many small business owners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Despite the protections afforded by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), workers who are deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) face workplace challenges that may require the aid of workplace resources and accommodations. Limited research has been conducted to understand the process of accommodation requests among DHH workers. OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study examined barriers and facilitators to requesting accommodations among DHH workers. METHODS: Fifty-nine DHH workers, recruited from organizations serving DHH workers across U.S., participated in the study. Participants' open-ended survey responses were analyzed and coded into themes representing barriers or facilitators to participants' decisions to request or withhold requests for accommodations. RESULTS: Facilitators to accommodation request include an employee's effective use of self-efficacy and self-advocacy; supportive work environments; and the presence of peers with disabilities. Barriers to accommodation requests include the anticipation of negative perception of stigmatization in the workplace; lack of knowledge related to accommodations and ADA; absence of workplace support; ineffectual workplace structure, policies, or procedures; concerns surrounding costs; and physical and access barriers in the workplace. CONCLUSION: To fulfill the workers' rights as guaranteed by the ADA, and to best serve the interests of the workplace, strategies are highlighted on how to assist DHH employees to take advantage of workplace accommodations with aims to promote job retention and success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mild and moderate mental illnesses can hinder labor force participation, lead to work interruptions, and hamper earning potential. Targeted interventions have proven effective at addressing these problems. But their potential depends on labor protections that enable people to take advantage of these interventions while keeping jobs and income. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is sweeping civil rights legislation that affords people with disabilities equality of opportunity, economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and full participation in daily life. The protections of the ADA extend to individuals with alcohol and substance abuse disorders who are in recovery. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to understand the ADA's definition of disability and how it applies to addiction and recovery. The reader will recognize how the ADA applies to people with addiction to alcohol and those in recovery from substance abuse. The article will describe the rights and responsibilities employers and employees have in the three stages of employment. METHOD: The material in this presentation was developed based on the authors' research, training, education, knowledge, and skill of the ADA. RESULTS: Individuals in recovery are often unaware of their civil rights under the ADA. The ADA ensures that people with disabilities, including those with alcohol use disorder and substance use disorders, have the same rights and opportunities in the workplace. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an increase in increased rates of alcoholism and substance abuse. Individuals living with addiction are unaware of the employment protections they may have under the ADA. Title I of the ADA guarantees employment protections to ensure equality in the workplace for people with disabilities. A clearer understanding of the law will ensure that job seekers and employees are treated in an ethical, valued, and courteous way when disclosing disability and the need for accommodation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The wave of remote work that has swept the nation since the COVID-19 pandemic has upended traditional notions about how and where work is performed. Advocates for disabled workers have lobbied for remote work for decades because the standard American workplace is designed around the nondisabled worker. The ability to work remotely is crucial to many workers with disabilities; it often determines whether they can maintain a job. And yet, most employers have refused to embrace remote work as a disability accommodation. This knee-jerk resistance to remote work has often been based on assumptions, past practice, and a lack of imagination rather than a careful, evidence-based examination of what is feasible and reasonable in a particular situation. In litigation, courts typically side with employers, basing their holdings on evidentiary practices that inevitably elevate employers' concerns over those of employees. This Article makes two unique contributions to the literature on remote work accommodations. First, it identifies and categorizes these sometimes subtle, but usually dispositive, evidentiary practices and analyzes how each is legally unsound. What the pandemic has taught us about remote work further erodes the bases for these practices, rendering them indefensible. Courts should abandon these evidentiary shenanigans. Second, this Article studies federal remote work accommodations decisions between April 2020 and December 2022. Results are mixed, but there are hopeful signs that some courts are changing practices in light of the mountain of data our pandemic-induced nationwide remote work experiment has generated. This change would be a welcome development for disabled plaintiffs that would help ensure they have a fair chance in court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Research has long documented the low cost and effectiveness of most workplace accommodations to enable qualified people with disabilities to seek, secure, and maintain employment. OBJECTIVE AND METHOD: RETAIN Kentucky's return to work and stay at work intervention involves focused training for participants on requesting needed accommodations from their employers. RESULTS: In this article, we describe the win-win approach to reasonable accommodations, which serves as the basis for helping Kentuckians with disabilities identify and request on-the-job supports to aid in their efforts to remain in the workforce. CONCLUSIONS: Workers with disabilities are more likely to stay in the workforce and continue making valuable contributions to the national and global economies if they have effective accommodations and other employment supports available to them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When the Americans with Disabilities Act was originally enacted in 1990, and later amended in 2008, technology had not yet advanced to where it is today. In the past decade, sophisticated computer applications and programs haue become commonplace. These advances in technology, have enabled millions of employees to work from home since the onset of the Couid-19 pandemic in March 2020. During the pandemic, more than half of the national labor force worked remotely. By most estimates, a sign(ficant percentage of the workforce will continue to work remotely, at least part time, even qfter the pandemic ends. This Article argues that people with disabilities, like their nondisabled colleagues, should enjoy the benefits of our new remote workplace culture. For employees with disabilities, Title I of the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) protects their right to accommodations in the workplace. Over the years, courts have been called upon to resolve disputes between disabled employees and their employers regarding whether or not an employee's request to work remotely is a "reasonable accommodation" under Title L An examination of the cases from every federal circuit court of appeals over the last decade reveals that most courts rule in favor of employers. However, due to recent changes in the workplace as a result of the Couid-19 pandemic, including greater reliance on communication technologies, the author argues that more courts should recognize remote work as a reasonable workplace accommodation for quali#ed employees. While it is true that not all employees-with or without disabilities-want to work *om home, and not alljobs can be done remotely, increasing opportunities for remote work as a reasonable accommodation Jurthers the goal of the ADA to promote employment and economic self sufficiency of disabled people. Remote work opportunities also may challenge the ongoing and systemic ableism that exists within marty workplaces today. 14trther, while discussions of the future of remote work have been a "hot topic" during the pandemic, this Article is the first to systemically review and analyze the state of remote work as a disability accommodation under the ADA. This Article incorporates legal analysis and social science evidence in support of its argument for remote work as a reasonable accommodation. This Article concludes with recommendations for changes to the applicable EEOC regulations which would clar(fy that remote work or "telework," the term used in the current regulations, is a reasonable accommodation for qual(fled employees under Title Iof the ADA. Such changes are necessary to re-envision remote work as the future of disability accommodations under the ADA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the courts' treatment of the Americans With Disabilities Act's (ADA) part-time work schedule accommodation, the reasoning that the courts employ to neutralize this accommodation, and their motivations for refusing to follow ADA's text.

Effective 2001, California passed the Prudence Kay Poppink Act, which broadened California's disability employment discrimination law to cover individuals with less-severe disabilities by lowering the burden of proof to establish a disability. Using both difference-in-differences and difference-in-difference-in- differences regression analyses and data from the Current Population Survey, the author estimates how this act affected the labor market outcomes for individuals with disabilities. The results suggest that the act significantly increased employment for individuals with disabilities, with the effect persisting at least partially up to six years later. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act ("ADAAA") was passed in 2008 and became effective on January 1, 2009. There are issues regarding reasonable accommodation that have arisen in connection with this Act. This article first explains what changes were made to the ADA's employment-related provisions with the ADAAA and also explains the relevant U.S. Supreme Court cases that led to passage of the ADAAA. Reasonable accommodation under the Act and reasonable accommodation cases are then discussed as well as the U.S. Airways v. Barnett case. We then end with ways to interpret these cases for guidance and the conclusion that as successful as passage of the ADAAA may have been in resolving problems with the original Americans with Disabilities Act, there are still issues to be resolved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The purpose of this study was to examine the workplace discrimination experiences of individuals with disabilities residing in the Midwest by exploring their allegations filed under Title I of the ADA from 1992 through 2016. Objective: The goals of this article are to describe region- and state-level patterns in workplace discrimination and to provide valuable information to stakeholders to better understand and address the issues within their respective areas of practice. Methods: Using population level data of every available closed discrimination allegation filed under Title I of the ADA from its effectuation (January 26, 1992) through the most recent available data (December 31, 2016), descriptive statistics were obtained for each state within the Midwest for each of the five specific research questions. Data for each state represent the overall frequencies and proportions for each state and are presented in the context of their respective national and regional rankings for comparison purposes. Results: Results for each state for each variable of consideration (i.e., allegation, CP disability type, prongs allegations, discrimination allegation type, and merit closures) are presented in tables for ease of comparison. Next steps and suggested questions for discussion are presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The formal reporting of disability to an employing organization is inconsistent and likely an underestimate of the true numbers of workers with disabilities and the presence of various types of disabilities. This issue interferes with an organization's count of such workers, as well as efforts to set priorities and develop practices to support workers with disabilities. The authors argue that creating inclusive work environments not only improves worker well-being (as suggested in past research) but also improves their reactions to the process of formal reporting of disability in the workplace. Design/methodology/approach: A sample of 160 working adults in the United States who reported disabilities or health conditions that may qualify as disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990, as amended in 2008) completed a survey that measured perceptions of the workplace environment and reactions to a frequently used disability disclosure form. Findings: When controlling for age of respondents, anticipated disability stigma and inclusion in the workplace predicted different reactions to a disability disclosure request. Anticipated stigma was associated with more negative emotion, concerns about privacy and others' reactions to their responses on the disclosure form. Inclusion in the workplace was associated with higher ratings for appropriateness of the measure, positive emotion and less negative emotion. Originality/value: Although research has identified associations between workplace inclusion and general worker experiences, such as job satisfaction and intentions to quit, this work uncovers a benefit of inclusion to required measurement processes in organizations. The unique contributions of inclusion and implications for workplace practices are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Americans with Disability Act sets forth the conditions under which management is compelled to respond to informal and formal requests for accommodations, one of which is that requests must relate to essential job functions. When requests do not relate to essential job functions, employer responsiveness becomes voluntary. The difference between compelled and voluntary management responsiveness to efforts by employees with disabilities to acquire workplace accommodations is import to the decision-making processes of employees with disabilitiess as is discussed here for the benefit of employees with disabilities, their supervisors, and advocates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This special section of the Journal of Cancer Survivorship examines disability-inclusive employment policy and practice, cancer survivorship, and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") of 1990. It considers current issues in research, policy, practice, and law in the United States, including new questions arising in light of COVID-19, such as the nature of disability disclosure, workplace accommodations and remote work, emerging workplace health surveillance technologies, and inclusive employment practices for cancer survivors. It also presents, for comparative purposes, a current analysis of cancer-related disability discrimination in the media in the United States and Israel. Methods: After the "Introduction," this special section presents two studies on disclosure of disability in employment: the first addressing disclosure during a job interview of the need for accommodations, and the second addressing disclosure as related to individual and organizational characteristics. The next two articles examine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the work experience: first, for people with disabilities working remotely, with implications for cancer survivors, and second, for cancer survivors and people with disabilities facing potential algorithmic health discrimination due to workplace health surveillance. The final article considers cancer-related stigma and discrimination, as faced in the United States and Israel (using a comparison of mass media). Results: Disability-inclusive employment laws such as the ADA promote two central requirements: First, social institutions affirmatively remove attitudinal and structural barriers and discrimination confronting people with disabilities as they exercise their rights to participate fully in society. Second, employers, governmental entities, and public accommodations comply with the "accommodation principle," which requires them to make reasonable adjustments to job tasks, places of work, and public places in society, to enable equal participation by qualified individuals with disabilities. The articles in this special section consider these principles in innovative ways from a disability-inclusive paradigm. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for a robust research literature on disability-inclusive employment policy and practice for people with disabilities and for cancer survivors. This special section offers five articles as a start. The section's "Introduction" also highlights recent ADA case law and introduces two new national Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers, one on Disability Inclusive Employment Policy ("DIEP RRTC") and one on Employer Practices Leading to Successful Employment Outcomes Among People with Disabilities ("Employer Practices RRTC"), both designed to help fill this need. The centers are currently examining ways organizations, including those in the gig economy, can facilitate inclusive employment of people with disabilities. Implications for Cancer Survivors: As highlighted in the Introduction's discussion of recent ADA cases involving cancer-related employment discrimination, as well as in the special section's articles, discrimination in employment persists and, indeed, is worsening for cancer survivors and those with disabilities. This discrimination affects people across the demographic spectrum, and it can be especially harmful to people in groups not always acknowledged, such as individuals with multiple, intersectional minority identities associated with race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity, as well as people at different stages of the life course. Furthermore, the impact of discrimination in employment is often exacerbated by life experiences such as unemployment and underemployment, financial insecurity, ableism, racism, and sexism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A significant gap in the ADA's protections lingers even after the ADA Amendments Act of 2008: whether individuals are protected from disability discrimination if their impairment lasted six months or less but was nonetheless the basis for some type of adverse employment or other action. The ADA does not explicitly exclude all short-term impairments, and the EEOC's regulations provide they can be an actual disability if they are "sufficiently severe." Without any further definition, not surprisingly perhaps, courts invoke reasoning similar to what they employed prior to the ADAAA's course correction in 2008, primarily focusing on duration as a measure of the impairment's severity and dismissing significant limitations as "trivial." This is inconsistent with several of the ADAAA's Rules of Construction. Relatedly, plaintiffs alleging short-term impairments under the "regarded as" prong frequently see their claims dismissed because the ADAAA excludes "transitory and minor" perceived impairments. Congress defined transitory--six months or less--but left minor to be interpreted by the courts. As with the actual disability cases, courts in the "transitory and minor" cases are finding impairments that are objectively more than trivial to nonetheless be minor. There is no discernable-principle for what makes one impairment minor but not another, other than vague analogies to infected fingers and seasonal flues. This Article argues that many short-term impairments are indistinguishable in any meaningful way from other protected impairments and individuals alleging such impairments are entitled to the full scope of ADA protections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the failure of U.S. federal circuit courts in fulfilling the purpose of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) in relation to reassignment to a vacant position as a reasonable accommodation. Topics discussed include the purpose of the ADA as stated by the U.S. Congress, the divide among circuit courts that led to the unequal treatment of disabled workers, the limited guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court, and the need for reassignment to be mandatory.

The movement to protect the rights of persons with disabilities has followed the trajectory of the U.S. Civil Rights movement, for decades. Issues of Social Justice for ethnic and racial minority citizens paved the way for inclusion of all underrepresented groups in our social order. The landmark events of the late 1960s and 1970s moved all Americans toward a picture of what it means to be included in our society, and eventually lead to the landmark piece of legislation for persons with disabilities in 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act. Unfortunately, the last group of those needing change have been young adults with intellectual disabilities, especially in education and employment. This article speaks to empowering that group by involvement in Inclusive Higher Education. The model program discussed uses a Systems Approach to Placement as the cornerstone for developing a Person-Centered plan for achieving each customer's career and independent living goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article summarizes the facts and rulings of a recent representative federal appeals court decision concerning the legal claims of two school nurses who lost their positions after advocating on behalf of students with diabetes. Their primary claim was the anti-retaliation protection under the pair of federal laws prohibiting disability discrimination—Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The second of the two nurses additionally asserted protection under this pair of laws based on her own asserted disabilities. The discussion reveals the sometimes significant difference between legal requirements, as determined by appellate courts, and professional norms, as perceived by practitioners and professors in school nursing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Americans with Disability Act sets forth the conditions under which management is compelled to respond to informal and formal requests for accommodations, one of which is that requests must relate to essential job functions. When requests do not relate to essential job functions, employer responsiveness becomes voluntary. The distinction between compelled and voluntary compliance has important implications for the process by which employees with disabilities pursue accommodations. The rather well-defined process for acquiring an accommodation when the ADA compels managers to respond is reviewed here. Discussion then turns to issues and examples associated with the less familiar process that some employees follow when management responses are voluntary. This less familiar process is discussed in the context of a strategy, known as job crafting, for expanding the boundaries, and thus the essential functions, of a job. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research indicates that transition-age youth with disabilities face several obstacles with regard to finding employment. However, research on the extent to which barriers and facilitators differ across disability types and contexts is lacking. Objective: The primary purpose of this qualitative study was to understand employment-related challenges encountered by a cross-section of transition-age youth with disabilities across multiple settings. In addition, the study also examined transition-aged youth's knowledge and use of rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Methods: We adopted a focus group strategy to understand the barriers faced by transition-aged youth with disabilities; five focus groups were conducted at five community-based locations in three states (Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia) in Federal Region 3 (i.e., Mid-Atlantic). Participants ranged in age from 16 to 24 (53.5% male; 44.2% White). Findings: Findings indicated that youth with disabilities faced several barriers in the form of stigma, lack of workplace supports and accommodations, their disability condition, and anxiety. In addition, a very small proportion of the sample were aware about the ADA and their rights under Title I. Conclusions: Findings highlight the need to develop programs that equip transition-aged youth with disabilities with the necessary skills as they prepare to enter the work force. In addition, efforts should be targeted at addressing the barriers identified in the study, such as stigma, as well as at increase students' knowledge of the ADA by embedding information within secondary and postsecondary academic curricula. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Romanian Journal of Comparative Law / Revista Romana de Drept Comparat is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Vendors of pre-employment personality tests promise that their products will help employers identify the ideal candidate for each job in a cost-effective manner, while improving diversity. Some vendors tout the algorithms underlying their assessments, claiming that artificial intelligence will remove unconscious bias from the hiring process. They report that their tests have no disparate impact based on race, sex, or national origin. What vendors do not address, however, is the impact their personality tests have on individuals with mental disabilities, who are protected from discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In fact, they claim that they do not have and cannot obtain information on that impact, because the ADA prohibits asking job applicants whether they have a disability. This Article contends that test vendors and employers must stop dodging the question of the effect of personality tests on individuals with mental disabilities. An adverse effect is likely: most modern personality tests are based on the Five Factor Model of Personality, and psychological studies have demonstrated correlations between the five factors and various mental disabilities. Personality test vendors should research whether and to what extent their products tend to screen out applicants with disabilities--while employers cannot ask about disability, that does not mean that test vendors cannot do so outside the employment context. In the absence of statistical evidence of group impact, applicants with disabilities should be able to assert individually focused disparate impact claims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the judiciary largely accepted the "full-time face-time norm" resulting in the systematic exclusion of persons with disabilities, women, and other members of protected groups from certain jobs. Claims involving aspects of the full-time face time norm include accommodation requests for telecommuting, flextime, part-time, and other flexible working arrangements. This Article examines prepandemic case law under the ADA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. COVID-19 has brought dramatic workplace changes, requiring judges to reexamine their previous restrictive rulings on workplace flexibility. During the pandemic, companies around the world went from prohibiting remote work to requiring it. This Article encourages judges, using the lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic, to re-examine the defining features of "work" and empower antidiscrimination law to more meaningfully expand equal employment opportunities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on Predictive Health Information and Employment Discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). It mentions completion of a draft sequence of the human genome facilitated the study of genomic variation, including research using single nucleotide variants, genome-wide association studies (GWAS), genotype-phenotype associations, and other methods.

Background: In this study, investigators examined the employment discrimination experiences of older workers (55 and over) with multiple sclerosis (MS) in comparison to younger adult workers with MS. Objective: To examine age as a differential indicator of demographic characteristics of the Charging Parties, the discrimination issues alleged to occur, and the legal outcome of allegation investigations. Methods: The study utilized data from the Integrated Mission System of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Results: Findings indicate that allegations filed by older Charging Parties with MS were more likely to come from Whites and Native Americans/Alaskan Natives. Allegations filed by older Charging Parties were less likely to come from African Americans. Allegations filed by older workers were less likely to involve reasonable accommodations and more likely to involve issues related to demotion. No significant differences were observed related to the types of case resolutions between the two groups. Conclusions: Results suggest that many of the workplace discrimination experiences of people with MS are common across age groups, indicating that the very presence of MS is likely the most salient factor in the discrimination experiences of Americans with MS. Implications for policy and practice are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study is to examine the prevalence of different workplace accommodation request strategies, the effectiveness of different request approaches, and situational and individual factors associated with different request strategies for individuals with disabilities. Common action plans of accommodation requests may vary depending on decisions about mentioning the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) (or not) and whether a formal (or informal) request is submitted, though past literature has focused primarily on formal accommodation requests made under the auspices of the ADA. Participants (n = 408) were recruited from rehabilitation agencies and organizations serving people with disabilities in the United States. The results indicated that informal requests without mentioning the ADA were found most often, followed by formal requests while not mentioning the ADA, formal requests while mentioning the ADA, and informal requests while mentioning the ADA. The odds of acquiring the requested accommodation were significantly higher, relative to other strategies, for requests made informally without mentioning the ADA. A variety of individual attributes capable of discerning when participants chose one strategy over another were observed; these included self-efficacy and outcome expectancy, negative affect, and an array of situational and personal attributes. Implications for research and practice were discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Employees and applicants with hidden disabilities often require accommodations to perform the duties of a position safely and effectively. If their disability is not readily apparent to an employer, employees must decide whether to reveal their disability to enable them to access reasonable accommodations available under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Revelation carries the real or at least the perceived risk of stigmatization, a negative reaction from both supervisors and coworkers, because of the negative characteristics and stereotypes attached to these disabilities. Given this conundrum, this article explores the ADA's requirement that an individual with a disability inform an employer that a requested accommodation is needed because of her disability, often before the employer is even required to engage in an interactive process to determine whether the accommodation would be reasonable. Even more information can be required to make that reasonableness determination. Effective strategies for employers to support requests for accommodation while avoiding potential stigmatization of employees with hidden disabilities will be explored in light of social science research on both the need for accommodations and the potential for stigmatization, as well a review of Fortune 100 Companies and an original survey of additional employers regarding their policies related to the accommodation process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on the impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on people with visual disabilities 30 years after its implementation. She examines the legislative intent of the ADA and the relevance of its goals to her personal experiences during the time the legislation was created. She describes the effect of the legislation's effective communication requirements on the way the government, businesses and nonprofit organizations communicate with the visually impaired.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with hearing loss experience unique barriers to employment frequently documented in the areas of communication and education. The purpose of this article is to contribute to extend this inquiry to the uniqueness of workplace discrimination involving persons with hearing loss. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated differences in allegations of workplace discrimination filed by persons with hearing loss ("Hearing") compared to those filed by persons with other physical or neurological disabilities (General Disability, or "GENDIS") before and after the enactment of the 2008 Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (2008 Amendments). METHODS: Using secondary data collected from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Integrated Mission System, we employ simple measures of proportion and odds ratios to describe differences between allegations derived from GENDIS and Hearing loss populations. These are population statistics, and not samples, of all allegations of discrimination reported to the EEOC through 2016. The comparisons involve Characteristics of the Charging Parties, Issues or discriminatory behaviors alleged, and closure statuses or Merit Rate of the EEOC's investigations – both before and after the 2008 Amendments. RESULTS: Following the 2008 Amendments, Charging Parties changed dramatically on age and gender status. Reasonable Accommodation, Hiring, Harassment, and employment Terms and Conditions showed unique features between groups and/or time periods. The "veracity" (confirmed truthfulness or merit) of the EEOC allegation (or Merit) rate also changed following the Amendments: higher for GENDIS; lower for Hearing. CONCLUSIONS: Possible rationale for these findings are offered, and new research questions are raised. Finally, implications for the cross-disability movement are presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most important issues under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is the appropriate standard for evaluating Title I employment disability discrimination cases where the employer argues that the employee has a medical condition that poses too much of a safety risk for the employee to work in a particular position. This is called the "direct threat" concept. In general, this permits an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of disability if the employee poses a "significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation." The federal courts of appeals are split on whether direct threat under Title I of the ADA is an affirmative defense that the employer must prove, or, alternatively, whether a qualified employee with a disability must prove that he or she can safely perform all essential job functions and is not a direct threat. This Article advocates for the treatment of the direct threat concept as an affirmative defense that the employer must prove. This Article further explains that proof of this defense does not require the employer to prove that its direct threat determination is "correct." Instead, the law requires the employer to prove that its direct threat determination was "objectively reasonable." Objective reasonableness often depends on the procedures that the employer uses to come to this conclusion. This Article also explains how the employer should take certain steps to better demonstrate that its direct threat determination was objectively reasonable. Finally, this Article explains how to apply the objective reasonableness standard when the employer is faced with conflicting medical opinions from qualified medical providers about whether an employee poses a direct threat in the workplace. The insights from the Article are applied to the summary judgment procedure and jury instructions in direct threat cases. In particular, it is hoped that this Article will help to reshape jury charges in direct threat cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Participation in competitive employment and other meaningful work activities is considered a fundamental human right and crucial to the health and well-being of people with and without disabilities. Approximately less than 30% of the persons with a disability aged 16 to 64 were employed in 2017, which is a striking disparity given that 73.5 % of people in this age group without disabilities were employed. Several 2 x 2 Factorial Designs were used to determine how a job applicant's disability status (disability disclosed, disability not disclosed) and gender (female, male) impacted how Human Resource Managers' (N = 392) evaluated the job applicant in three areas, including (a) how likely are they to hire this job applicant, (b) how qualified do they view this job applicant, and (c) what would they recommend as a starting salary if the applicant was hired. Furthermore, there was an interest in investigating how knowledge of Title 1 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) influenced the Human Resource Managers' hiring-related decisions. Findings revealed that the starting salary was significantly lower for the applicant with a disability. Knowledge of the ADA did not control for any hiring-related decisions. Discussion and implications are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On the 29th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the author takes stock on what the Act has accomplished thus far and what still needs attention, as he reflects on Andrew I. Batavia's (Drew) discovered memoirs and his life mission as a disability activist. Drew was a person with a spinal cord injury who wrote regulations for the Act. As we celebrate the Act today we need to protect and advance these civil rights now and into the future so that all people can participate more fully in life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the rapid growth of the aging workforce, age-related conditions may negatively influence overall workplace safety and health among these workers and their employers. In this summary, we have outlined details about visual acuity, glare sensitivity, and contrast sensitivity, which are common age-related vision changes that can potentially affect their occupational safety. The occupational health nurse is well positioned to address these concerns by instructing aging workers about potential development of vision change and ensuring they receive the appropriate vision screening. By assisting employers to modify work environments to accommodate this population, the occupational health nurse can reduce the risk of injury, as well as positively impact the health of their aging workforce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the patterns in allegations of workplace discrimination by individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS). OBJECTIVE: To describe the discrimination, both actual and perceived, that has occurred against individuals with MS in comparison to a group of individuals with other disabilities (GENDIS) through analysis of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Integrated Mission System (IMS) database. METHODS: An ex post facto, causal-comparative quantitative design was used to examine Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) Title I complaints received by the EEOC from people with MS from 2009 through 2016 (n = 4,000) in comparison to the GENDIS group over the same time period (n = 139,728). RESULTS: The MS group was less likely to allege discrimination regarding discharge but more likely to allege discrimination regarding reasonable accommodation, constructive discharge, discipline, insurance benefits, and demotion. Charging parties with MS were more likely to be female, younger, and Caucasian and less likely to identify as African American, Hispanic/Mexican, or Asian. The EEOC was more likely to evaluate allegations by adults with MS as having merit than those filed by the GENDIS group. Implications for vocational rehabilitation practice include the need for consultation regarding recognition of on-the-job discrimination and procedures for filing allegations consistent with EEOC guidelines; greater use of physical and occupational therapy; and development of cognitive support technology strategies to aid in job performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On September 20, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Severson v. Heartland Woodcraft, Inc. held that an employee requesting a multi-month leave of absence is not a "qualified individual" employee under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and that such leave is therefore not a reasonable accommodation as defined by the ADA. In so doing, the court split from its sister circuits and made a bright-line rule that categorically excludes certain employees with disabilities from protection under the ADA. This Comment argues that the Seventh Circuit should have left more room for case by case inquiries into the specific circumstances of leave of absence requests to align with the underlying purposes of the ADA: providing individualized accommodations to employees with disabilities to ensure they have access to equal employment opportunities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article informs on circuit split regarding noncompetitive reassignment under the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. Topics discussed include brief background of the ADA and reasonable accommodation; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit court case EEOC v. St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc. addressing reasonable accommodation; and the U.S. Supreme Court case U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett on reasonable accommodation of a disabled employee.

The article focuses on growth of effective and affordable assistive technology with potential benefit both to workers with disabilities and to their employers. It mentions tax, retention, attendance, productivity, and public image advantages of employing workers with disabilities. It also mentions goal of increasing the employment of workers with disabilities by educating employers and minimal cost and unexpected benefits to the employer under Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).

The goal of this research was to describe allegations of discrimination, both actual and perceived, that were filed by individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) in comparison to a group of individuals with other physical disabilities (GENDIS) through analysis of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Integrated Mission System (IMS) database. An ex post facto, causal comparative quantitative design was used to examine Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title I allegations received by the EEOC from charging parties with SUD from 1992 through 2011 (n = 8,432) in comparison to the GENDIS group over the same timeframe (n = 82,618). Results revealed statistically significant differences in the patterns of issues alleged by the two groups. In addition, compared to the GENDIS comparison group, the SUD group was significantly younger, had a significantly higher proportion of males, had proportionally more individuals who identified as Caucasian and as Other, and had proportionally fewer individuals who identified as Hispanic/Mexican and Asian. Charging parties with SUD were significantly less likely than the GENDIS group to have their allegations result in a merit-based case resolution. Implications for rehabilitation practice and further research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A bstract Diversity is a benchmark that is sought after in workplace organizations as there is a proven correlation between institutional diversity and customer satisfaction (Association of Research Libraries, n.d.). Fulfilling the aspiration of a diversified workforce can prove challenging. When organizations aim to fill staff positions with representatives from certain subsets of the population, tokenism and merit may enter the conversation. Most organizations want to be diverse, but when diversity extends to impairments that require money and time to be invested, change can be slow to come. But what if one organization has a wide array of representation resulting in an enriched understanding of their customer base and how to serve them, but the same cannot be said of organizations that they partner with? Through interviews with library personnel, we examine their experiences and perceptions about the efficacy with which they are able to perform their job. We also include insights from Mike Galifianakis, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator for the Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission, 1 whose mission is to provide comprehensive educational and technical support for state agencies so that those programs, services, and activities operated by the State of Georgia are accessible and usable by everyone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article argue that autistic academics, should be protected from adverse employment action even though our disability commonly manifests in behavioral, personality, and social interactions that would be unprotected and unaccommodated, even under traditional notions of employment law. It mentions few laws that provide employment protections in cases with Autism like Americans with Disabilities Act, and Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act.