Search

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]

This investigation determined if there is a difference in the proportion of Title I workplace discrimination allegations filed by females in comparison to males under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in relation to the employer characteristics. Findings are reported and implications for future research and vocational rehabilitation practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Demographic characteristics of female charging parties in comparison to males who filed allegations of workplace discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act were examined using a secondary database maintained by the United States' Equal Employment opportunity Commission (EEOC). Findings indicated that charging parties have distinct profiles related to demographic characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Integrated Mission System database were analyzed with specific reference to allegations of workplace discrimination filed by individuals with cancer under ADA Title One. These 6,832 allegations, filed between July 27, 1992 and September 30, 2003, were compared to 167,798 allegations from a general disability population on the following dimensions: type of workplace discrimination; demographic characteristics of the charging parties (CPs); the industry designation, location, and size of employers; and the outcome or resolution of EEOC investigations. Results showed allegations derived from CPs with cancer were more likely than those in the general disability population to include issues involving discharge, terms and conditions of employment, lay-off, wages, and demotion. Compared to the general disability group, CPs with cancer were more likely to be female, older, and White. Allegations derived from CPs with cancer were also more likely to be filed against smaller employers (15–100 workers) or those in service industries. Finally, the resolution of allegations by CPs with cancer were more likely to be meritorious than those filed from the general disability population; that is, actual discrimination is more likely to have occurred. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nine years after enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act, three Supreme Court decisions, known as the Sutton trilogy, required that mitigating circumstances be considered in determining whether or not a particular individual has a disability under the statute. This article evaluates how the Sutton trilogy has altered the nature and scope of employment discrimination experienced by Americans with diabetes. Allegations of workplace discrimination filed by Americans with diabetes with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission were examined. Pre-Sutton allegations (n=5644) were compared and contrasted with Post-Sutton allegations (n=5793) on specified characteristics including industry, issue, and rate of merit resolution. Findings fail to support the position that the Sutton trilogy deterred Americans with diabetes from registering formal complaints, but it may have emboldened employers to engage in more widespread and egregious levels of discrimination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]