Search

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 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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), a significant, bipartisan piece of legislation, safeguards the disabled from discriminatory practices during employment. When passing this proscription on discrimination, Congress sought to give disabled employees protections that other classes of individuals enjoy under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a statute prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. After Supreme Court decisions limiting the definition of a disability, Congress responded. In 2008, Congress passed the ADA Amendments Act, expanding the scope of what counts as a disability and superseding decisions from the Court. Despite these victories for disabled employees, one issue has remained elusive for those bringing claims under the ADA: causation. The Supreme Court issued several opinions relating to causation under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, but has yet to provide guidance for causation under the ADA. Thus, the federal courts of appeals are divided about the appropriate causation standard. Some circuits are requiring plaintiffs to prove but-for causation, a higher burden, in their discrimination claims, while others are permitting the motivating factor standard, which is a lighter burden. This note argues that but-for causation, based on decisions from the Court, is the correct standard for discrimination claims arising under the original ADA, but the motivating factor standard is available for claims after the amended ADA. It also urges Congress to codify the motivating factor standard into the ADA as it did for Title VII. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As one ages, the chance of acquiring functional limitations increases dramatically. Thus, a remarkably high proportion of older workers will likely qualify for workplace accommodations. The current study aimed to gain an understanding of subgroups of older workers who were less likely to request and receive accommodations, associations of psychosocial factors (i.e., workplace supports, employees’ knowledge of the Americans With Disabilities Act [ADA] and accommodations, and whether an individual has a work goal) with requesting and receiving accommodations, and differences on these psychosocial factors within various demographic subgroups of older workers. Two hundred thirty-one individuals 50 years and older recruited from multiple national organizations and rehabilitation agencies participated in this study through an online survey. The study found that the psychosocial factors were positively associated with requesting and receiving accommodations. In addition, participants who were less likely to request and receive accommodations reported lower scores in the psychosocial factors. Practical implications for rehabilitation counselors and further research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: People with disabilities experience longstanding barriers to employment. However, beyond the conventional metrics of labor force participation or unemployment rates we know very little about the workplace experiences of people with disabilities. OBJECTIVE: This study describes findings from the 2015 Kessler Foundation National Employment and Disability Survey (2015 KFNEDS), a nationally representative survey of Americans with disabilities. METHODS: A dual-frame, random digit dial, nationally representative survey was conducted. Survey respondents included 3013 working age adults with a disability. Survey respondents were asked about disability, employment status, job search activities and workplace experiences. RESULTS: Over 42% of survey respondents were currently working. 68.4% were striving to work characterized by job preparation, job search and/or participation in the workforce since the onset of their disability. Although some barriers persisted in the workplace, many were able to overcome the same. Overall, 47.8% of the respondents used workplace accommodations, 45.3% were satisfied with their jobs, 86.6% felt accepted in their workplace. CONCLUSION:The 2015KFNEDShighlights how people with disabilities strive towork and overcome barriers, a discourse largely overlooked in contemporary disability and employment research. Survey findings can inform new programs and policies to improve employment outcomes for people with disabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a 2017 report on equal employment opportunities and treatment in employment on visually impaired individuals in the U.S. Topics discussed include Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and ADA Amendments Act provisions, the continuing receipt of workplace discrimination complaints, and the link of categories of discrimination charges to their filing before or after ADAAA. Also noted are the job acquisition charges decline and discrimination charges increase after ADAAA.

BACKGROUND: People with multiple sclerosis (MS) are known to face a multitude of challenges as they attempt to re-initiate or maintain their careers following onset of the disease. OBJECTIVE: Less is known, however, about the subjective experiences of people with MS regarding employment barriers. METHODS: Using the results of a larger national survey of the employment concerns of people with MS that was conducted in 2014-2015 as a basis for data collection, this qualitative study involved six focus groups comprising 20 people with MS and 27 MS service providers. RESULTS: Focus group participants offered subjective perspectives on and suggestions for addressing employment barriers that represented four major themes: understanding the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, on-the-job accommodations and the Americans with Disabilities Act, reassignment as a job retention strategy, and disclosure of disability. CONCLUSION: Findings are discussed within the context of existing literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Federal legislation, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504, and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, mandates that individuals with disabilities be integrated in all aspects of life from education to employment to independent living. A recent development involves a settlement reached between the United States and the State of Rhode Island/City of Providence regarding sheltered workshops. States must ensure the availability of a continuum of alternative settings that span from restrictive (e.g., sheltered workshops) to fully integrated, community-based, competitive employment. The use of sheltered workshops as categorical, permanent, segregated practice is discriminatory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses how employers should handle the special needs that an employee with a chronic disease might have which can continue for years after an illness is diagnosed. Topics include the case of Kim Hall, an event planner who underwent surgery and chemotherapy for colorectal cancer, definition of chronic disease, and the creation of workplace accommodation tool kits by Job Accommodation Network (JAN) and others to help supervisors understand the concept of accommodation.

BACKGROUND: This article derives from data provided by the National EEOC ADA Research Project at VCU. It is intended to document the nature and scope of discrimination as reported to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the enforcement agency for ADA, by persons with learning disabilities (LD). This article deals with the topic of discrimination "Issues;" i.e., the nature of the violations alleged by Charging Parties with learning disabilities. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain differences in the way people with LD experience workplace discrimination as compared to a general disability population. METHODS: Database mining and descriptive and non-parametric analyses of high-prevalence issues associated with learning disabilities as contrasted with a general disability population. RESULTS: Findings indicate that in general the ranking of high prevalence issues is very similar for both groups. But for six select issues, the proportions of allegations filed by LD and GENDIS groups are markedly different. CONCLUSIONS: These differences show that "more prevalent in LD" discrimination issues tend to involve currently employed workers and have a punitive effect; e.g., disability harassment and intimidation, constructive discharge and discipline. On the positive side, failure to provide reasonable accommodation and outright unlawful discharge are less commonplace for LD charging parties. Currently employed LD workers and employers may benefit from understanding these nuances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the issues surrounding pregnancy-related discrimination in the workplace in the U.S., and also offers solutions for mitigating the same. Topics discussed include an account of laws that protect the rights of the pregnant workers; enactment of Pregnant Worker Fairness Act for the same; and number of claims pending with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

BACKGROUND: Employment of people with disabilities continues to be a concern in the field of rehabilitation counseling. Employment rates remain low, resulting in many people with disabilities living at or below the poverty line. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceptions of Hispanic small business owners toward hiring people with disabilities. METHODS: The 38-item Employer Attitudes Questionnaire (EAQ) and the 33-item Small Business Owners Survey (SBOS) were used to investigate attitudes and concerns about hiring issues along with the business owners' general feelings toward the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Survey packets were distributed in the business districts of two selected cities in southern Texas. Two hundred and seventeen participants took part in the study. RESULTS: The findings suggest that there is a range of views about the capabilities of workers from various disability categories as well as differing opinions on the cost of reasonable accommodations. The results of a regression analysis yielded three significant predictors influencing hiring decisions: whether the business owner had a family member or a friend with a disability, the business owner's marital status, and their awareness of the ADA. CONCLUSIONS: There is a continuing need to educate small business owners about disability- and employment-rights legislation; however, cost considerations to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities seem to be significantly more important for small business owners than for large corporations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the experiences with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of adults with multiple sclerosis (MS) across three phases of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) implementation: Phase I (pre-Sutton decision era, 1992-1999), Phase II (Sutton decision era, 2000-2008), and Phase III (ADA Amendments Act era, 2009-2011). OBJECTIVE: Research questions addressed differential (a) characteristics of charging parties and respondents, (b) patterns in the number and type of allegations, and (c) proportions of merit and non-merit EEOC judgments. METHODS: The study utilized data from the Integrated Mission System of the U.S. EEOC. RESULTS: Findings indicated that proportionally more women and Hispanic adults with MS ?led claims during Phases II and III than during Phase I. More older individuals and African Americans with MS filed claims during Phase III than during Phases I and II. In Phase I, adults with MS were more likely to allege discrimination against smaller employers and less likely to ?le charges against larger employers, a trend that reversed during Phases II and III. The annual number of resolved EEOC charges appeared to increase during Phase I, increase then decrease in Phase II, and increase during Phase III. Regardless of phase, most allegations pertained to either unlawful discharge or failure to provide reasonable accommodations. Although higher in Phase III than in I, the percentage of EEOC merit decisions was highest in Phase II. CONCLUSION: Over time, more typically disenfranchised individuals sought ADA protections, possibly due to publicity, support from advocates, and membership in a culture supporting diversity and nondiscrimination. The increased number of resolved allegations in Phase III was consistent with the greater inclusiveness attributed to the ADA Amendments Act. Interpretation of other findings is provided regarding characteristics of respondents, types of allegations, and trends in EEOC merit decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses issues about employment and career development of American citizens with disabilities.

BACKGROUND: The National EEOC ADA Research Project (NEARP) is an exhaustive data-mining effort that relies upon the master database used by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to track investigations of workplace discrimination. NEARP investigators seek to develop disability or industry-specific profiles of employment discrimination, explore the contentious issues involved in workplace discrimination, document the interface of disability with other demographics, evaluate extant theories of stigma, and predict EEOC investigatory outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The salient features of the NEARP database are described which themselves reveal new insights into the nature and scope of disability discrimination. METHODS: This is a review article. Abridgment and replication of tables from the NEARP codebook are given along with a description of basic findings from previously published NEARP studies. RESULTS: Summary statistics of a descriptive nature are given to illustrate the basic nature and scope of discrimination including Charging Party and Employer Characteristics, discriminatory Issues or personnel actions, and the types of Outcomes which document case closures and their trends. CONCLUSIONS: NEARP is a research collaborative to which employment and disability researchers are invited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The empirical literature on the impact of psychiatric disability on employment outcomes has consistently shown that individuals with psychiatric disabilities are more likely than those without to experience adverse labor market outcomes. One strategy invoked to address barriers to employment has been reasonable job accommodations, developed originally through the Americans With Disabilities Act legislation. However, little is known about the factors associated with the request for reasonable job accommodations among those with serious psychiatric disabilities. Data for this study come from a longitudinal multisite demonstration project funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Accommodations were reported by individuals with serious mental health disabilities who became employed. Results from logistic regression analysis found that those who disclosed their disability to their employers, who were more severely disabled, and who had positive social relationships were more likely to request accommodations. This study advances our knowledge of the factors that influence the decision of individuals with serious mental health disabilities to seek accommodation in the work environment and offers a framework for guiding rehabilitation counselors in ways that might help to enhance employment outcomes for this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the U.S. Ninth Circuit court decision in K.M. v. Tustin Unified School District related to special education rights under section 504. Topics discussed include impact of Tustin case on the difference in the standard of education required under section 504; Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and American's with Disabilities Act (ADA); and Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) of 1975 which provides equal education to all the people.

The Americans With Disabilities Act, along with the ADA Amendments Act, court decisions, and technological advances, have combined to create a situation which, at the time of original ADA's passage in 1990, would have been virtually unthinkable--employees with some disabilities now have the right to legally demand that they be allowed to work from home. With the advancing age of the workforce, and increases in networking abilities to link the home into the office, the number of employers facing said demands is certain to increase. The following is a guide for analyzing and dealing with said demands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: In this study, investigators examined the employment discrimination experiences of older workers (55 and over) with disabilities in comparison to younger adult workers with disabilities. OBJECTIVE: To examine age as a differential indicator of demographic characteristics of the Charging Parties, characteristics of Employers against whom allegations were filed, 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 were more likely to come from males and Caucasians and to involve more nonparalytic orthopedic, cardiovascular, vision, hearing, endocrinological, respiratory, and other age-related impairments. Allegations filed by older Charging Parties involved fewer mental health concerns, substance use disorders, blood and immune disorders, developmental disabilities, and chronic illnesses such as multiple sclerosis and epilepsy. Allegations filed by older workers were less likely to involve involuntary termination and more likely to involve work assignments, the terms and conditions of employment, layoff, and involuntary retirement. No significant differences in the proportions of allegations were observed related to the size of respondent employers or the outcomes of the EEOC's investigatory process. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that many of the workplace discrimination experiences of people with disabilities are common across age groups, and that partial support is evident for 'double jeopardy' in the treatment of older workers with disabilities. Implications for policy and practice are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Two decades since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, individuals with psychiatric disabilities continue to face barriers to employment that includes sensitivity to the benefit structure of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI). OBJECTIVE: This study examines cost-savings to the SSI program due to enhanced employment outcomes for persons with psychiatric disabilities associated with the receipt of job accommodations. METHODS: Data come from a federally funded, multi-site, implementation effectiveness study of supported employment models for 987 working age adults. Cost-savings were estimated using ordinary least squares regression to examine averted SSI payment. RESULTS: Accommodations were associated with a marginal monthly SSI savings of $ 11.73, and these savings were 68 percent higher compared to the non-accommodations group. Being married, having independent housing, and recent employment history predicted savings increases. Physical and emotional problems affecting work, a schizophrenia diagnosis, and symptoms of social withdrawal and blunted affect predicted lower savings. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds to a small body of literature examining the impact of accommodations for persons with psychiatric disabilities. Future work in this area might examine savings to the Social Security Disability Insurance program and should include factors unavailable in this analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the 2014 National Health Law Moot Court competition problem of balancing administrative authority, employer discretion, and disability accommodations. It mentions the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interprets the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to require employers to reassign qualified employees with disabilities. It also mentions discretionary terms that any judicial review would intrude on the authority.

The article offers information on the 2014 National Health Law Moot Court competition of Southern Illinois University with problems associated with the U.S. Supreme Court case Sunset ManorCare, LLC, v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It mentions alleging of Employee Transfer Policy violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to provide for reassignment of employees with disabilities and discrimination against employee.

The article offers information on the 2014 National Health Law Moot Court competition of Southern Illinois University with problems associated with the U.S. Supreme Court case Sunset ManorCare, LLC, v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It mentions Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's conciliation process under a good faith standard since it is a prerequisite to litigation. It also mentions Americans with Disabilities Act require Sunset to reassign a minimally qualified employee.

In 1990, Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") to eliminate widespread discrimination against disabled persons. The Act requires private employers to provide reasonable accommodations to disabled employees to allow them to continue performing essential job functions. One accommodation in particular has divided the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals: reassigning disabled employees to vacant positions. Due to a current circuit split, it is unclear if employers must reassign disabled employees despite maintaining policies of choosing the best-qualified employees for reassignment. This Note argues that both the text of the ADA and the ADA's legislative history support automatic reassignments when no other reasonable accommodations allow a disabled employee to perform his or her essential job functions. Although reassignments pose several unique concerns, they are adequately addressed through existing statutory safeguards and U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations. Noncompetitive reassignments should be given teeth either through a congressional amendment or through future court cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: The federal government has invested billions of dollars to promote employment for adults with intellectual disabilities. Despite this investment, the employment rate within this population has remained stable during the recent decades. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to identify characteristics of adults with intellectual disabilities who are employed, and to understand the paths towards employment for these individuals. METHODS: Respondents included a nationally representative sample of 1,055 parents/guardians of adult children (21 years of age or older) with an intellectual disability surveyed by Gallup. These parents/guardians were selected from approximately 341,000 households screened by Gallup. This methodology allowed for the inclusion of a sample of adults with ID who had never been in the labor force or even sought employment. RESULTS: Several characteristics are associated with greater likelihood of employment, including younger age, early work experience, higher levels of adaptive behavior, and absence of emotional and behavioral problems. These characteristics are especially predictive of employment in a competitive setting, and relatively less predictive of sheltered employment. There is very little movement between the two types of employment settings: very few people currently in competitive employment ever worked in a sheltered setting. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study have clear implications for policies and programs. Young adults with intellectual disabilities need early opportunities to work in community settings. These community-based experiences must provide them with the opportunity to develop necessary adaptive, behavioral, and emotional skills. Finally, policy makers must recognize that sheltered employment is not a stepping-stone to employment in a competitive setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The practice of social work has been greatly affected by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Title I of the statute prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities, including the increasing number of workers who are returning to work after a traumatic brain injury (TBI). This article examines the extent to which the ADA protects those with TBI from being harassed, being denied reasonable workplace accommodations, or suffering other adverse actions related to perceived discrimination. To do so, it relies on judicial decisions from U.S. federal courts involving alleged workplace discrimination of this population. Implications for social work practice are noted with the intent of increasing ADA awareness among professionals providing services to people who meet the criteria for disability under the ADA as well as to those persons who do not. The authors hope to encourage social workers to rely on case law analysis as a mechanism to provide further evidence of the systematic problems faced by people with TBI and thus increase their visibility. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This Article contends that workplace accommodations should be predicated on need or effectiveness instead of group-identity status. It proposes that, in principle, "accommodating every body" be achieved by extending Americans with Disabilities Act-type reasonable accommodation to all work-capable members of the general population for whom accommodation is necessary to give them meaningful access. Doing so shifts the focus of accommodation disputes from the contentious identitybased contours of "disabled" plaintiffs to the core issue of alleged discrimination. This proposal likewise avoids current problems associated with excluding "unworthy" individuals from employment opportunity--people whose functional capacity does not comply with prevailing workforce design and organizational presumptions-- and who therefore require accommodation. Adopting this proposal also responds to growing demands to extend the length of time people remain at work by enhancing employment opportunities for aging individuals still capable of contributing on the job. Provision of accommodations for age-related alteration of functionality, when the accommodations are effective, is reasonably prescribed because it is in everyone's interest to retain maximum capabilities as they grow older, whether or not they also possess identity-based characteristics sufficient to constitute a "disability" under the ADA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]