Search

Purpose: The goal of the research was to describe discrimination, both actual and perceived, that has occurred against younger individuals with cancer (i.e., 35 years of age and under) in comparison with older individuals with cancer (i.e., over age 35) through analysis of the US 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 younger people with cancer from 2009 through 2016 (n = 1001) in comparison with older people with cancer over the same time period (n = 8874)., Results: Results revealed statistically significant differences in the patterns of issues alleged by the two groups. When compared with older charging parties with cancer, the younger charging parties with cancer had proportionally more individuals who were male and who identified as African American and proportionally fewer individuals who identified as Caucasian., Conclusions: Younger people with cancer were more likely to allege discrimination in the areas of promotion, training, reinstatement, and referrals to other employers. They were less likely to allege discrimination in the area of benefits. The younger group was also significantly less likely than the older group to find that EEOC investigations of their allegations resulted in merit-based case resolutions, that is, discrimination had indeed occurred., Implications for Cancer Survivors: Psychosocial programs and vocational programming assisting young adults with career development should focus on the types of discrimination that young adults experience, which is unique compared with older adult cancer survivors.

Background The purpose of this study was to investigate the patterns in allegations of workplace discrimination filed by individuals with cancer. Objective The goal of the research was to describe discrimination, both actual and perceived, that has occurred against individuals with cancer in comparison to a group of individuals with other general disabilities (GENDIS) through analyses 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 cancer from 2009 through 2016 (n = 10,848) in comparison to the GENDIS group over the same time period (n = 13,338). Results Results revealed statistically significant differences in the patterns of issues alleged by the two groups. When compared to the GENDIS group, the cancer group was significantly older and had proportionally more individuals who identified as Asian than the GENDIS group. People with cancer were more likely to allege discrimination in the areas of unlawful discharge, demotion, wages, layoff, benefits, and referrals. They were less likely to allege discrimination in areas of reasonable accommodation, hiring, and suspension. Also, the cancer group was more likely than the GENDIS group to file allegations against smaller employers and employers in the Southeast region of the United States, while employers in the Mid-Atlantic and Rocky Mountain regions were less likely to be named in allegations by people with cancer. The cancer group was also significantly more likely than the GENDIS group to find that EEOC investigations of their allegations resulted in merit-based case resolution, that is, discrimination had indeed occurred. Owing to the large sample size, some of these between-group differences were small in magnitude. Conclusion The workplace discrimination experiences of people with cancer are substantially different from those of people with other disabilities.

Purpose: The relationship between the employment status of women with disabilities and the incidence of physical and sexual abuse in the United States was examined., Method: Data from the 2005 Behavioural Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) were analyzed using descriptive analysis and proportional analysis to determine the significance of the relationship between the experience of abuse and employment status for women with disabilities. Due to the large sample size, effect size was examined through Cohen's h. Logistic regression analysis was also used to examine the risk of unemployment for women with disabilities who are abused., Results: Women with disabilities who have been abused have higher levels of unemployment than women without disabilities who have not been abused. In addition, women with disabilities who have been abused have higher levels of unemployment than women without disabilities who have not been abused. Finally, experiencing physical and sexual abuse increases the risk of unemployment for women with disabilities., Conclusion: Unemployment increases the disadvantage for an already vulnerable population and potentially prevents women with disabilities from being able to break the cycle of violence they are experiencing. Recommendations are discussed with regard to intervention by rehabilitation professionals to assist women with disabilities who experience abuse.