Search

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]

BACKGROUND: This article derives from data provided by the National EEOC ADA Research Project at VCU. It is intended to document whether and how the findings of an EEOC investigation are different when allegations of workplace discrimination derived from persons with Learning Disabilities (LD) are compared to those derived from a General Disability Population (GENDIS). This particular article deals squarely with merit of the allegation upon closure of the investigation. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain differences in outcomes of investigations involving allegations derived from persons with LD vs. GENDIS. METHODS: Database mining and descriptive and non-parametric analyses of merit vs. non-merit closures were compared, as well as CHAID analysis of those factors which drive the difference in closure rates between the two groups. RESULTS: Findings indicate that in general proportion of merit for both groups is about the same. However, there are profound differences in the subcategories "settlements with benefits" (higher for LD) and conciliation failure (lower for LD; the EEOC finds merit but the employer does not concur). With respect to the CHAID analysis, only one predictor value was associated with a significant differentiation of the merit rate within LD: Merit rates were markedly higher for LD in the age group 18-21. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of EEOC investigations derived from persons with LD are not unique. Any history of LD as an "atypical" condition that is poorly understood or of questionable legitimacy is not confirmed by the "behavior" of the ADA implementation process. Indeed the only differentiation between the two groups derives from LD allegations in the narrow age band 19-21 years, wherein the veracity of their charges is elevated by 37%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

BACKGROUND: This article derives from data provided by the National EEOC ADA Research Project at VCU. It is one of 3 articles in this volume/issue. 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). Specifically, a group of 9,480 allegations filed with the EEOC and derived from individuals with learning disabilities is compared to a group of 313,480 allegations derived from individuals with other known physical, mental, and behavioral impairments. OBJECTIVE: Comparisons were made based upon the characteristics of the individual charging parties including age, race and gender as well as characteristics of the employer including industry code and number of workers. METHODS: Database mining and descriptive and non-parametric analyses were applied to determine differences in these characteristics. RESULTS: Findings indicate that allegation activities are higher among LD charging parties who are white males between the ages of 15 and 39. Allegations by LD charging parties are more prevalent among smaller employers (15-100 workers) in the industries of Accommodation and Food Services, Retail Trade, Educational Services, and Arts/Entertainment/Recreation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Objective: The aim of this study was twofold: (a) to explore patterns of discrimination in relation to broad-basis categories of disability and (b) to investigate patterns of discrimination between allegations derived from charging parties with sensory impairments versus those with nonsensory impairments. Basis categories included physical, behavioral, neurological, and sensory impairments. Research Method: Database mining, descriptive analysis, and Pearson's chi-square analyses were utilized to compare broad-basis categories. Results: In general, regardless of disability type, individuals experience the highest frequency and proportion of workplace discrimination in the areas of termination and reasonable accommodations. However, there are significant differences in the workplace discrimination experiences of the four broader groups. Conclusions: Noteworthy differences exist regarding the experience of workplace discrimination among basis categories of disability, especially with respect to sensory impairment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]