Article

Hiring discrimination against people with disabilities under the ADA: characteristics of charging parties.

Department of Rehabilitation Counseling, Virginia Commonwealth University, PO Box 980330, Richmond, VA 23298-0330, USA.
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation (Impact Factor: 2.8). 07/2008; 18(2):122-32. DOI: 10.1007/s10926-008-9133-4
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This article describes findings from a causal comparative study of the characteristics of Charging Parties who filed allegations of Hiring discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) between 1992 and 2005.
Charging Party Characteristics derived from 19,527 closed Hiring allegations are compared and contrasted to 259,680 closed allegations aggregated from six other prevalent forms of discrimination including Discharge and Constructive Discharge, Reasonable Accommodation, Disability Harassment and Intimidation, and Terms and Conditions of Employment. Tests of Proportion distributed as chi-square are used to form comparisons along a variety of factors including age, gender, impairment, and ethnicity.
Most allegations of ADA job discrimination fall into the realm of job retention and career advancement as opposed to job acquisition. Hiring allegations, however, tend to be filed by Charging Parties who are disproportionately male, younger or older applicants, white, and coping with physical or sensory disabilities.
Prevailing theories about stigma suggest that negative attitudes are more prevalent toward persons with behavioral disabilities. However, this study provides clear evidence that one behavioral manifestation of negative attitudes, Hiring discrimination, is more often directed at persons with physical or sensory impairments. More outreach regarding ADA rights appears indicated for individuals who share the aforementioned characteristics.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
226 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose – A review of the academic literature on managerial promotions reveals that there has been a limited number of studies conducted on this subject. This study aims to identify key determinants used by managers in making managerial promotion decisions via Bayesian networks. It also seeks to explore the effects these determinants have on managerial promotion outcomes. Design/methodology/approach – The researchers surveyed MBA students with significant work experience to assess the effect levels for 13 managerial promotion factors derived from a research study by Service and Lockamy. The participants were asked to assign a percentage effect level to these factors. Factor analysis was used to determine the most influential factors, and Bayesian networks were constructed to determine the probability of receiving a promotion based on these factors. Findings – The results indicate that there are five key determinants which have the most influence on managerial promotions. They also indicate that managerial promotion outcomes were not significantly influenced by either the promoting manager's years of work experience, or the number of promotions witnessed. Originality/value – The paper focuses on managerial and professional career advancement research, managerial promotion processes, and personnel development.
    Journal of Management Development 04/2011; 30(4):381-401.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study examines the importance of work in life of people with disability and then focuses on employer attitudes towards these people. In the light of Stone and Colella's model, the study examines the employer attitudes and the role of variables such as type of disability, employer experience in the hiring of persons with disabilities, the description of hypothetical hirees with disabilities, the ways in which employers evaluate work performance and social acceptability, and the work tasks that they consider appropriate for workers with disability. Eighty employers were randomly assigned to standard condition (candidates with disability were presented by referring to the disability they presented) or positive condition (candidates were presented with reference to their strengths). It was found that the type of disability and its presentation influence employer attitudes. In addition, realistic and conventional tasks were considered appropriate for hirees with disabilities. Implications were discussed.
    Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 11/2013; · 1.38 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction The purpose of this study is to examine the possible interactions of predictor variables pertaining to perceived disability claims contained in a large governmental database. Specifically, it is a retrospective analysis of US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) data for the entire population of workplace discrimination claims based on the "regarded as disabled" prong of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) definition of disability. Methods The study utilized records extracted from a "master database" of over two million charges of workplace discrimination in the Integrated Mission System of the EEOC. This database includes all ADA-related discrimination allegations filed from July 26, 1992 through December 31, 2008. Chi squared automatic interaction detection (CHAID) was employed to analyze interaction effects of relevant variables, such as issue (grievance) and industry type. The research question addressed by CHAID is: What combination of factors are associated with merit outcomes for people making ADA EEOC allegations who are "regarded as" having disabilities? Results The CHAID analysis shows how merit outcome is predicted by the interaction of relevant variables. Issue was found to be the most prominent variable in determining merit outcome, followed by industry type, but the picture is made more complex by qualifications regarding age and race data. Although discharge was the most frequent grievance among charging parties in the perceived disability group, its merit outcome was significantly less than that for the leading factor of hiring.
    Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 08/2013; 24(2). · 2.80 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
111 Downloads
Available from
May 16, 2014