Search

This article documents the employment discrimination experienced by Americans with a record of disability but no current disability, utilizing the Integrated Mission System of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Decisions by the EEOC in favor of charging parties with historical disabilities disproportionately exceeded those in favor of charging parties with current disabilities. This finding suggests that discrimination against persons who have only a record of disability persists in the workplace, and that this additional aspect of the definition of the term 'disability' is viable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using the Integrated Mission System (IMS) of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for allegations of discrimination involving Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), allegations made by individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) and by individuals with intellectual disabilities (IDs) are compared and contrasted. Key dimensions of workplace discrimination examined include: demographic characteristics of the charging parties; the industry designation, location and size of employers against whom allegations were filed; the nature of workplace discrimination alleged to have occurred; and the EEOC outcome/resolution of these allegations. The characteristics of ASD allegations are then compared and contrasted with those of ID allegations. The findings of this study imply that typical ASD and ID allegations are characteristically quite similar to each other. Differences that were found between the two groups of allegations indicate that charging parties with ASD are more likely to be a bit younger than those with ID, and are more likely to be male. Additionally, ASD allegations of discrimination were more likely than ID to have been made against Information, Educational Services, and Arts/Entertainment/Recreation industry employers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ADA Title I allegations are investigated and closed by the EEOC either with or without merit. Allegations resolved with merit indicate that actual disability employment discrimination took place against the person filing the allegation (the charging party) and those resolved without merit indicate that no discrimination took place. This study examined the drivers or predictors of merit in allegations filed by charging parties with mental illness (e.g., anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and unknown mental illness). Results indicated that the primary driver for ADA Title I allegations is [discrimination] Issue and corroborated the lower merit rate for mental illness allegations (19.83%) as compared to non mental illness allegations (23.39%). Further analysis of the Merit and Non Merit Resolution Types by non parametric tests of proportion between allegations filed by charging parties with mental illness and those filed by charging parties without mental illness also corroborated the lower mental illness allegation merit rate. The lower merit rate for mental illness allegations may indicate that: 1) there is less actual employment discrimination occurring against persons with mental illness; 2) that allegations filed by persons with mental illness are inherently difficult to prove; and/or 3) that the merit rate for mental illness allegations might be higher if they were not potentially under-reported. Implications, conclusions, and directions for future research are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction to the special issue of the journal is presented in which the editor discusses several articles within the issue pertaining to workplace discrimination and disability.

The funding of assistive technology (AT) in the United States falls within a complex web of traditional and non-traditional funding sources that often create challenging barriers for individuals with disabilities. This article outlines the founding policies that drive the federal and state funding of AT across insurance, education, rehabilitation sectors and beyond. A presentation of specific medical and non-medical funding options is discussed addressing eligibility, types of AT covered and general program characteristics. I conclude with recommendations for the pursuit of AT funding in light of these policies and options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]