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.

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]

This article discusses disability inclusion in the workplace. It identifies barriers and makes recommendations to help meet employment needs of people with disabilities, utilizing lupus as an example. A convergent mixed method design study examined the workplace experiences and needs of individuals with lupus. Availability sampling yielded 1,776 participants from across the United States. The results revealed 69% of the respondents reported that lupus symptoms had a negative impact on their employment and 48% of the participants reported needing help or accommodations in the workplace. An inductive thematic content analysis with an inter-coder agreement ranging from 71% to 73% yielded 4 themes encompassing issues related to productivity, interpersonal relationship in the workplace, and adjustments in work responsibilities and work environment, respectively. The results suggest that training programs about the American with Disability Act may have a positive impact on organizational functioning. Employers have a responsibility to maintain a flexible work environment whenever possible to address variability in employees' needs. Employers and employees should engage in ongoing discussions that seek to identify accommodations that will help employees with disabilities meet their workplace responsibilities and to enhance their contribution to the organization. Managers and administrators are encouraged to create an environment that values a diverse workforce, including persons with disabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]