Content uploaded by Hadeel Al-Zu’bi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hadeel Al-Zu’bi on Feb 13, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCH
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Hadeel Al-Zu’bi
University of Jordan, Jordan
h.alzubi@ju.edu.jo
KEYWORDS:
Persons with Disabilities;
Administrative law; Public
Function; Jordanian public
sector; Civil Service Regulation;
Human rights
TO CITE THIS ARTICLE:
Al-Zu’bi, Hadeel, and Ghofran
Hilal. 2024. “Access to Public
Employment for Persons
with Disabilities in Jordan:
Legal Framework, Policy,
and Barriers.” Scandinavian
Journal of Disability Research
26(1): 1–15. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.16993/sjdr.1072
Access to Public Employment
for Persons with Disabilities
in Jordan: Legal Framework,
Policy, and Barriers
HADEEL AL-ZU’BI
GHOFRAN HILAL
ABSTRACT
Inequality in employment is a significant barrier to the advancement of social and
economic development for persons with disabilities (PWDs) in the Jordanian context.
The objective of this study is to address the disparity between theoretical concepts
and practical implementation of the accessibility of public employment for PWDs.
This was achieved through an analysis of the legal framework, policies, and obstacles
encountered by this population. Despite the availability of progressive legislation and
policies, the implementation of these measures often gives rise to various gaps and
loopholes. Hence, this study provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal framework
pertaining to PWDs in an enabling environment. It also highlights the numerous
obstacles that PWDs encounter in accessing employment, resulting in their continued
social marginalization and isolation. This study asserts that the inclusion of provisions
in legal texts to ensure employment opportunities for PWDs is inadequate. The absence
of effective enforcement mechanisms for disability laws highlights the need to align
existing legal frameworks with the actuality of suitable work facilities, reasonable
accommodations, accessible infrastructure, and adherence to quota systems.
*Author affiliations can be found in the back matter of this article
2Al-Zu’bi and Hilal
Scandinavian Journal of
Disability Research
DOI: 10.16993/sjdr.1072
1. INTRODUCTION
Law is considered a catalyst for societal change; persons with disabilities (PWDs) have
encountered numerous obstacles because of legal frameworks. For example, the lack
of a dedicated law that ensures a proactive assurance of the right to employment for this
group, particularly within the public sector, exacerbates their difficulties and obstacles. The
incorporation of PWDs into the workforce remains a significant obstacle despite the country’s
economic and financial capabilities. The practical and technical accessibility challenges faced
by PWDs in accessing employment opportunities within the public sector in Jordan pose
obstacles to their full inclusion as active participants in society.
Thus far, Jordanian literature has exhibited limited inclination towards engaging with the matter
of public employment accessibility. The topic of PWDs in the workforce across the public and
private sectors in Jordan was examined in a study conducted by Bitar (2013). Several studies have
been conducted to investigate the rights of PWDs in Jordan. Thompson (2018) and Rutherford
(2007) conducted research that explored this issue from a broad perspective. In contrast, Al-
Majali (2008) conducted a study that focused specifically on the legislative framework for PWDs.
Previous scholarly research has explored various dimensions pertaining to disabled employees
in the public sector. For instance, Ababneh (2016) focused on the management of this particular
demographic, while Ababneh and Alshaik (2020) delved into the experiences of a more specific
subgroup within this category, namely working women with disabilities.
Given the lack of scholarship on this topic from a legal perspective, a basic issue should be
considered when examining the legal corpus related to PWDs: the promotion of employment
for PWDs in the public sector and its accessibility in practice. Fundamentally, it points to a
gap between the law on the books and the social reality for PWDs. Thus, discussing the legal
dimension of any right from a national perspective must start with the source of these rights as
stipulated by laws and regulations. Moreover, to fully grasp the topic at hand from an empirical
perspective, an interview was conducted on Sunday, October 29, 2023, with the Director of the
Civil Service Bureau, to perceive the practical reality of employing people with disabilities in the
public sector, their employment rate, the main obstacles they face, and the proposed solutions.
A quick study of the rights stated in the constitution, which is the supreme form of law, is
essential to understanding the juridical philosophy of the legislator in addressing the rights of
any category. Hence, we will cross-examine the constitutional texts guaranteeing these rights
before presenting, with a critical review, the national texts implementing these constitutional
guarantees.
2. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR PWDs
Since 1981, there have been numerous endeavors by Jordanian activists to suggest responsive
legislation that is sensitive to the requirements of those with disabilities. These efforts have
received backing from members of the Royal Family, who are actively engaged in disability-
related matters (Al-Majali 2008). The year 1989 witnessed the issuance of the Provisional
Law for the Welfare of Disabled People no. 34, which marked a significant milestone as the
first legislation specifically addressing the rights and needs of disabled individuals in Jordan.
Moreover, the Law for the Welfare of Disabled People no. 12 was enacted in 1993 to establish
and reinforce the rights of PWDs across a wide range of domains. These rights encompass
areas such as education, training, employment, rehabilitation, medical treatment, sports and
recreation, transportation, provision of aids and equipment, support services, and inclusion in
decision-making processes.
Over the past decade, there has been a notable increase in the recognition and understanding
of the rights of PWDs in Jordan. The Franklin Delano Roosevelt International Disability Award
was bestowed upon Jordan in the year 2005. According to Rutherford (2007), the international
community has acknowledged Jordan’s role in advocating for the rights of PWDs, positioning it
as a leader in the Arab World.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) was adopted
in 2006 to acknowledge and emphasize the significance of promoting the human rights of
PWDs on a global scale (Harpur 2012). Consequently, Jordan took the step of signing and
3Al-Zu’bi and Hilal
Scandinavian Journal of
Disability Research
DOI: 10.16993/sjdr.1072
ratifying the UNCRPD in 2007, with a reservation specifically to one provision, paragraph 2
of Article 23, which confers upon PWDs both the right and the obligation to engage in the
adoption of children. Despite this single reservation, which is rarely the case, this indicates
Jordan’s complete commitment to fulfilling the obligations of the UNCRPD, with the primary
commitment regarding the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (Kanter
2007). Moreover, the UNCRPD requires its parties to establish and maintain national mechanisms
that guarantee the complete integration of PWDs in the political, social, and economic domains
on an equal basis. These mechanisms should also work towards removing barriers that impede
the equal and fair enjoyment of their rights (Lang et al. 2011).
The Jordanian government established the Higher Council for the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (HCD) and issued the Law on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (LRPD) no. 31
of 2007. The LRPD was a step forward in improving the national legal texts related to PWDs
however it fell short in many areas. It consisted of 21 articles introducing new concepts not
mentioned in the previous legislation. For example, it included an article about vocational
training and employment for PWDs, but this law lacked flexibility and effectiveness to fit
vulnerable person’s needs, such as providing reasonable accommodation for employees with
disabilities to give them equal opportunity to benefit from training to perform their jobs.
However, to align with the provisions of the UNCRPD and improve the rights of PWDs, the law
underwent a comprehensive review in 2017. Consequently, it was replaced by LRPD no. 20 of
2017. This revision aimed to prioritize the rights of PWDs in areas such as definition, education,
and employment. Furthermore, the revised law expanded the range of services available to
PWDs, thereby addressing the deficiencies present in the previous legislation. For example, it
encompasses a more extensive elucidation of the concept of disability. In Article 3(A), a PWD
is defined as an individual who experiences a chronic physical, sensory, mental, or neurological
impairment that results in overlapping physical limitations and behavioral obstacles. This
impairment hinders their ability to perform certain daily activities or independently exercise
their rights and fundamental freedoms. It is important to note that the Preamble of the UNCRPD
recognizes disability as a notion that is subject to change and evolution, as it is influenced by
culture, civilization, and societal progress (Preamble 5). In the context of this study, PWDs are
operationally defined as individuals whose impairments have an impact on their capacity to
perform in a professional setting, irrespective of the specific nature of their disabilities.
In the given context, the UNCRPD has the potential to significantly contribute to the realization
of the right to work for PWDs, while also exerting influence on the development of a more
inclusive legal and policy framework (Albin 2015). It is incumbent upon Jordan to effectively
execute the provisions outlined in the UNCRPD, with particular emphasis on articles 5, 8, 9,
12, and 27. These articles pertain to the entitlements of PWDs to equitable employment
opportunities, encompassing accessible work environments, transportation, reasonable
accommodations, social safeguards, and rehabilitative services.
From a practical standpoint, the Director of the Civil Service Bureau emphasizes that the
Persons with Disabilities Law of 2017 specifies a 4% quota for the employment of persons with
disabilities in alignment with the UNCRPD, which is consequently reflected in the regulation
related to their appointment in the public sector in the first, second, and third categories.
However, in practice, this percentage is only achievable on the availability of vacancies initially
suited for them. Subsequently, candidates (persons with disabilities) undergo a competitive
exam among themselves. The Civil Service Bureau provides facilitative arrangements needed
for their exams. For example, they offer braille language as a means of communication for
individuals with visual impairments.
In reality, the situation reveals a greater degree of complexity. When discussing the employment
of PWDs within law enforcement, it is important to reference Article 25(E) of LRPD no. 20 of
2017. This article specifically mandates that 4% of available positions in the public sector must
be allocated to PWDs, which is compatible with the provisions of the UNCRPD. However, per
the findings presented in the second annual report to monitor the conditions of persons with
disabilities and their rights, the rate of employment for PWDs within the public sector did not
surpass 2.0% (HCD 2021).
4Al-Zu’bi and Hilal
Scandinavian Journal of
Disability Research
DOI: 10.16993/sjdr.1072
3. THE RIGHTS OF PWDs TO ACCESS EMPLOYMENT IN THE
CONSTITUTION OF JORDAN OF 1952: BETWEEN EMPOWERMENT
AND PROTECTION
The Preamble to the UNCRPD stresses that ‘disability results from the interaction between
persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinder their full
and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others’ (Preamble 5). Therefore,
according to the UNCRPD, social participation is hindered by unhealthy interactions between
people with impairments and disabling barriers and challenges (Kazou 2017). These barriers
and challenges are not always tangible, as sometimes social and legal norms are most likely
to influence society’s perception of PWDs’ capabilities and, consequently, their legal rights and
responsibilities. Critically, to realize the objectives of the UNCRPD, States parties must embed its
principles in national law. Jordan’s Constitution of 1952 safeguards the basic liberties and rights
of all citizens and entrenches Jordan’s fundamental values and commitments to human rights,
defending them against any discrimination and violation (Thompson 2018). The PWDs are
citizens who enjoy rights and bear obligations the same as any other citizen stipulated by the
second chapter entitled ‘Rights and Duties of Jordanians.’ The sixth article of the constitution
confirms the principle of equality between all Jordanians, declaring in its first paragraph that:
‘Jordanians shall be equal before the law. There shall be no discrimination between them
regarding their rights and duties on grounds of race, language, or religion.’
In view of the fact that there is no anti-discrimination law in Jordan, Article 6 of the Constitution
enshrines the right to work in paragraph 3, which states that ‘The Kingdom shall ensure work and
education within the limits of its capacity and shall ensure tranquility and equal opportunities
to all Jordanians.’ Furthermore, paragraph 5 stipulates that ‘the law shall protect motherhood,
childhood, and the seniors; and shall avail care for the youngsters and those with disabilities
and protect them against abuse and exploitation.’ Here, the legislator’s approach towards
PWDs is founded on the notion of protection rather than empowerment. It is comprehensively
expected of the Jordanian legislator to focus on protecting certain groups of citizens considered
vulnerable and who require additional protection against abuse and exploitation. Even on the
International level, for decades, human rights instruments for PWDs focused on protection
before diverting their attention to empowerment through sensitization by lawmakers and law
enforcers and inclusion into society to module individual autonomy.
Therefore, in 2022, Article (6.5) of the Constitution of 1952 was amended to enhance the
participation of PWDs within their society: ‘The law protects the rights of persons with
disabilities and enhances their participation and integration in the various aspects of life; in
addition, it protects motherhood, childhood, and seniors; avails care for the youngsters; and
prohibits abuse and exploitation.’ This constitutional reform emphasized the role of the law in
enhancing the actual participation and integration of PWDs as well as the traditional approach
of protection against exploitation and abuse. This reform is considered a positive step towards
achieving equality.
Within this context, the Constitution singles out the rights of PWDs with additional protection
while confirming the principle of equality among all citizens without any form of discrimination.
This constitutes a form of positive discrimination that reflects the prioritisation of the rights
of PWDs in Jordan and sets the framework for developing legislation to promote their rights.
However, as the Constitution focuses on protection rather than empowerment, the nature and
scope of these constitutional guarantees remain highly controversial and impractical, especially
regarding the right to work in both the private and public sectors under Article (23/1) of the
Constitution of 1952: ‘Work is the right of every citizen, and the State shall provide opportunities
for work to all citizens by directing the national economy and raising its standards.’
The right to access employment in the public sector is stipulated in Article 22 of the Constitution,
which provides that,
1—Every Jordanian shall be entitled to hold public offices under the conditions
prescribed in law or regulations, 2— Appointment to public offices, whether
permanent or temporary, in the Kingdom and the departments attached thereto and
the municipalities shall be based on merits and qualifications.
5Al-Zu’bi and Hilal
Scandinavian Journal of
Disability Research
DOI: 10.16993/sjdr.1072
Such precise wording indicates that all Jordanians have equal rights to access public work
opportunities; however, recruitment in the public sector shall be based on merits and
qualifications (such as skills, experience, and ability to perform the job), regardless of race,
gender, religion, marital status, or disability. Consequently, merit-based legislation leaves
incumbent possibility frontiers for patronage in practice unaffected in the state (Schuster 2017).
Noting that achieving full justice for PWDs in holding public office is not only a commitment to
Jordan’s commitments in international covenants but also a fulfillment of the constitutional
guarantees of equality between Jordanians.
Public employment in Jordan is regulated by the civil servant regulation under Article 120 of the
Jordanian Constitution, which stipulates that,
The administrative divisions of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the structures of
government departments, their grades, designations, methods of administration, and
the manner of the appointment of civil servants, their dismissal, their supervision,
and the limits of their authorities and competences shall be specified by regulations
issued by the Council of Ministers with the approval of the King.
In that light, the appointment of civil servants shall be issued by the Council of Ministers, the
executive authority, in the form of regulations rather than laws, which are usually issued
by the legislative authority. The reason is that civil servant regulation is not considered an
employment law, i.e., labor code, for public employees. Civil servant regulation is a branch
of public law that defines the responsibilities, duties, and rights of the civil servant and
implements the structure and policies of the public administration system. A quick scan of
these duties and responsibilities defined by the civil servant regulation shows a wide range
of variation and a great deal of flexibility to allow a margin of adaptability for the civil servant
to address unforeseen developments in fluctuating public policies. Thus, being issued by
regulation and not a law is related to the fact that the process of amending ordinary laws is
more difficult than that of regulations; hence, the importance of maintaining the civil servant
regulation as agile and adaptable. Furthermore, civil servants are confronted in their work with
a considerable number of values and principles of administrative law, such as accountability,
consistency, cooperativeness, expertise, honesty, impartiality, dedication, effectiveness,
efficiency, innovation, lawfulness, obedience, responsiveness, service orientation, social equity,
sustainability, and transparency (Demmke 2005). These values and principles are applied to all
employees without any discrimination, which guarantees the rights of PWDs.
4. UNDERSTANDING THE LAW ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS
WITH DISABILITIES NO. (20) 2017: QUOTA SYSTEM,
VOCATIONAL TRAINING AND REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION
By the provisions of the Constitution, which emphasizes providing appropriate and equal job
opportunities for every individual in society without any discrimination, a particular law should
be issued to protect PWDs from any exploitation or discrimination by changing the conditions
in which attitudes are reinforced (Emens 2012). In that light, under LRPD no. 20 of 2017, which
stressed that the exclusion of a person from work, training, or the opportunity of progression in
their careers based on, or due to, their disability is prohibited. Also, including in announcements
of employment or job openings provisions on the need to be disability-free is forbidden. In that
regard, the Supreme Administrative Court of Jordan, in its decision no. 109/2019 affirms that,
if one of the members of the Social Security Committee is blind, this does not constitute any
objection to the composition of the committee, and its formation is considered valid; disability
should not be considered a barrier to preventing candidature for holding a position (Jordanian
Supreme Administrative Court Decisions no. 109/2019 and no. 30/4/2019).
In 2012, Jordan submitted its first report, acknowledging the critical challenge of the availability
of specialized statistics on the number of PWDs (quota system), the level of their disability, and
more importantly, the availability, or lack thereof, of reasonable accommodation (CRPD 2012).
To overcome these challenges, Article 25 of LRPD no. 20 of 2017 is at the heart of understanding
the process of employment for PWDs, whether in the public or private sector, focusing on
three aspects that guarantee access to employment for PWDs: an employment quota system,
vocational training, and reasonable accommodation. These aspects will be discussed in detail.
6Al-Zu’bi and Hilal
Scandinavian Journal of
Disability Research
DOI: 10.16993/sjdr.1072
In terms of the quota system: Globally, two policy approaches have typically been used to
promote the employment of PWDs. One is the ‘equality of opportunity’ PWDs approach, based
on anti-discrimination laws; the other is the ‘employment quota approach,’ which is based on
employment quota systems (Liao 2021). The Jordanian system, as declared in LRPD no. 20 of
2017, has adopted an ‘employment quota approach’ under Article 25/E, which stipulates that,
Without undermining work or job requirements related to academic or professional
qualifications, government and non-government organizations with at least (25)
employees and no more than (50) employees each pledge to hire at least one employee
with disabilities to fill out one of its vacancies. If there are more than (50) employees
hired by these organizations, 4% of the relevant vacancies should be assigned to
persons with disabilities, according to a decision made by the Ministry of Labor.
This system is based on a distinction between PWDs and people without disabilities and
mandates the employment of PWDs according to established numerical standards (Hasegawa
2007).
Thus, it could be argued that, where binding quotas are introduced as part of the national
legislation, as shown by the quota system, they are applied for hiring disabilities in both the
private and public sectors. The priority of employment for persons with disabilities is defined
as positive discrimination. As such, this approach is found to promote access to employment,
which indicates a difference in treatment in favor of the disabled but legitimized by the objective
of combating a pre-existing de facto inequality, the discrimination against the disabled for
access to employment (Chevallier 2011). Consequently, this quota system can promote
access to employment for PWDs and oblige employers to ensure that a certain proportion of
their employees are PWDs. In this instance, the quota system is looked upon as a device for
placing PWDs at a common starting point to facilitate fair competition for a distribution that
is ultimately uneven (Conrad 1976). It can secure positive impacts within certain parameters;
nevertheless, there is a lack of sense of association between disabilities and job performance
(Hasegawa 2007).
Regarding appointments in the public sector in general, the Director of the Civil Service Bureau
stated that appointments in 2020 were suspended due to the impact of the COVID-19
pandemic. The 2020 global COVID-19 pandemic had a serious impact on the economies
of many countries. To date, little is known about the immediate impact of the COVID-19
pandemic on the employment and financial security of people with disabilities in Jordan. The
allocation of appointments was restricted to cater exclusively to the needs of the Ministries of
Health and Education. According to the annual report for the year 2021, there was a decline
in appointment rates from 2017 to 2021. The appointment rate accounted for only 2% of
the total cumulative employment requests, which amounted to 455,449. The phenomenon
can be ascribed to the scarcity of positions available in the public sector, wherein the
recruitment, selection, and appointment are designed to fulfill the human resource’s estimated
governmental needs. Persons with disabilities are classified under the category of employment
for humanitarian cases. According to the Civil Service Bureau’s annual report of 2021, it is
shown that appointments under humanitarian cases totaled 5,174 positions, accounting for
4.9%, including 2,236 positions filled by persons with disabilities, accounting for 2.3%. Whereas
the annual report of the Civil Service Bureau for 2022, indicated that appointments under
humanitarian cases increased to 8,094, accounting for 6.6%. with 2,268 positions for persons
with disabilities, constituting 3.5%.
Appointment rates do not reach the specified 4% stated by the CRPD, already ratified by Jordan.
Hence, to this date, Jordan fails to meet this requirement, leaving persons with disabilities in a
constant struggle to find employment, bearing in mind that statistics of this kind are sometimes
inaccurate.
In terms of Vocational training, Article (25/C) stipulates that,
both the Ministry of Labor and the Vocational Training Corporation will, according to
their area of competence and in coordination with the Council, execute the following:
1. include into the policies, strategies, plans, and programs of work technical and
vocational education and training and related curricula measures that will guarantee
the inclusion of persons with disabilities and secure their utilization on an equal basis
7Al-Zu’bi and Hilal
Scandinavian Journal of
Disability Research
DOI: 10.16993/sjdr.1072
with others. 2. prepare the curricula and services extended within the vocational
training programs and provide such services in formats accessible to persons with
disabilities in a manner that enables them to benefit from such programs and
services. 3. refrain from excluding persons with disabilities from training in any
profession after accommodations have been made because of disability.
Accordingly, to improve employment opportunities for PWDs, vocational training institutions
are designed to implement capacity-building programs that are appropriate to the needs of
the labor market. Taking into consideration that the Institute of Public Administration in Jordan
is specialized in training, capacity building, studies, research, and consultations in various fields
of public administration. The institute offers training programs for public servants that are
consistent with the competencies associated with approved career paths in the civil service
and that simulate national priorities and plans. The Institute, in cooperation with the Civil
Service Bureau, has worked to enhance and build the capabilities of PWDs by designing and
implementing specialized programs to enable them and qualify them for the labor market.
In terms of reasonable accommodation, practically speaking, does the quota system guarantee
appropriate access to employment? The latter question goes directly to the heart of the matter
posed that the quota system is not a guarantee of encountering good practice, just providing
the right to work for PWDs is insufficient; they also need the availability of work facilities in
their organization (Goss et al. 2000). In that light, for implementing LRPD no. 20 of 2017, the
organization shall provide reasonable accommodation to PWDs on the grounds of enabling
them to exercise their fundamental freedoms and rights, as indicated in Article 4/J through
‘The removal of physical and behavioral barriers for persons with disabilities, that include a
lack or absence of reasonable accommodation or accessible formats or accessibility, as well as
individual and institutional behaviors and discriminatory practices based on disability.’
Moreover, Article 25/D stipulates that ‘both government and non-government authorities will
provide reasonable accommodation to enable persons with disabilities to carry out their jobs or
tasks and to retain their jobs and attain promotions therein.’ Given that, the authorities mentioned
herein are responsible for providing a fully accessible ‘reasonable accommodation’ to PWDs at
a workplace. The definition of ‘reasonable accommodation’ as stipulated in Article 2 is defined
as ‘the alteration of the environment or time-related conditions within a specific context of time
or place to enable the person with a disability to practise a right or freedom, or to gain access to
services on an equal basis with others.’ Thus, the concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ is still
vague to the employer as well as to the disabled employees themselves. It is worth noting that
the reasonable accommodation duty is quite complex and requires an understanding of what
lives up to an ‘accommodation’ when that accommodation will be regarded as ‘reasonable’
or not, and when the employer can claim that providing reasonable accommodation facilities
would place them under a ‘disproportionate burden’ (Waddington 2011).
Moreover, Article 33/A of the same law states that ‘It is impermissible to endorse or licence
plans, designs, or to grant licences and work permits for public or private buildings, places of
worship, tourist locations, and other establishments and facilities extending services to the
public unless they have full accessibility’. In other words, it is not permissible to grant work
licenses to any organization, unless it is appropriate to the needs of the PWDs. Jordanian
policymakers should regulate flexible and alternative work arrangements that reasonably
accommodate the needs of disabled workers. In addition to changing policies, an organization
should examine its attitudes, values, and beliefs. With this in mind, employers may find value
in taking a proactive stance toward employees with disabilities (Macy 1996).
Correspondingly, as shown in a study of working women with disabilities, citing evidence
from the Jordanian public sector, it was concluded that there is a gap between reality and
law; inaccessibility is one of the key issues facing working PWDs. For this reason, the available
facilities in the Jordanian public sector should be redesigned to suit the employees with
disabilities because they are only appropriate for employees without disabilities (Ababneh & Al-
Shaik 2020). For this reason, LRPD no. 20 of 2017 should be redrafted to ensure their effective
application, and the institutions should be obliged to provide a facilitating workplace for the work
of PWDs, help them develop a new work identity, and adjust to disability (Mettävainio & Ahlgren
2004). Noting that Article 14/C of LRPD no. 20 of 2017, established an ‘Equal Opportunities
8Al-Zu’bi and Hilal
Scandinavian Journal of
Disability Research
DOI: 10.16993/sjdr.1072
Committee,’ which is responsible for receiving complaints related to discrimination based on, or
because of, disability in the field of work as well as issuing technical reports related to providing
reasonable accommodation within the working environment.
Certainly, whether in legislation or not, inaccessibility in buildings is due to inadequate strategic
planning by decision-makers, briefly, ‘accessibility happens if it is planned for’ (Lepofsky
& Graham 2009). Hence, the amendments to LRPD no. 20 of 2017, have emphasized and
endorsed the facilities and needs of PWDs. For instance, Article 32/B/1 indicates that a national
plan should be developed to correct the conditions of buildings and facilities to meet the needs
of PWDs, which states that,
The Ministry of Public Works and Housing, in coordination with the Greater Amman
Municipality, the municipalities, and entities considered within their jurisdiction,
the Jordanian National Building Commission, the Council, and government and
non-government organisations of relevance, will execute the following: Draw up a
national plan for the implementation of alterations to buildings, facilities, places of
worship, and tourist sites that extend services to the public and that were established
before this Law went into effect, for the sake of providing accessibility, provided that
implementation of this plan takes place within one year from the date on which this
Law goes into effect and will be completed in no later than ten years.
Accordingly, in 2019, the Jordanian Government launched a 10-year plan to rectify existing
buildings and public facilities. If implemented, the plan would guarantee that 60% of all public
facilities would be accessible to PWDs. However, the plan does not ensure the availability of
funds for its implementation. Noting that, the Higher Council for Persons with Disabilities has
affirmed the following up of multiple projects under the above plan; however, it does not state
any actual deliverables (HCD 2021).
Therefore, Article 48/B imposes sanctions on organizations that are not bound by the quota
system specified in Article 25 mentioned above, which states that ‘Anyone who violates the
provisions of clause (e) of Article (25) of this Law shall pay a fine of not less than Three Thousand
Dinars and no more than Five Thousand Dinars, and the same punishment shall be inflicted on
whoever refuses to employ a person based on, or because of, disability’. However, this article
does not apply to the public sector, which means that there is no obligation for the public
sector except for international treaties. Concerning the private sector, to shirk responsibility,
they resort to legitimizing the concept of ‘reasonable accommodation’ mentioned above, as
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Committee mentioned: ‘For
example, as long as workplaces are designed and built in ways that make them inaccessible to
wheelchairs, employers will be able to “justify” their failure to employ wheelchair users’ (CESCR
1994). For this reason, LRPD no. 20 of 2017 should be fully inclusive, and very detailed to avoid
such justified violations.
In short, introducing quotas for the employment of PWDs may help to mitigate the barriers to
their participation in the labor market. Unfortunately, the way of ‘addressing’ accessibility issues
has too often been to leave it to PWDs to litigate against barriers one at a time. Nevertheless,
disabled people are entitled to work in an assistive environment with proper accommodations
and accessibility. In other words, the regulations on public employment include a quota for PWDs,
as well as a duty to provide reasonable accommodation. We argue that there are shortcomings
because the law places more emphasis on the quota approach and that it remains insufficient
as regards reasonable accommodation. Consequently, we believe that the quota system is an
interim approach that one day must be removed in favor of concrete equality, which is not
possible unless PWDs are fully provided with reasonable accommodation. Therefore, ensuring
this right is not only a national responsibility but also a matter of international cooperation (Borg
et al. 2011). However, the question is how to implement these strategies per the recruitment
legal framework in the public sector. It is worth mentioning that the Jordanian legislator has
linked the implementation of these provisions with civil service regulation.
9Al-Zu’bi and Hilal
Scandinavian Journal of
Disability Research
DOI: 10.16993/sjdr.1072
5. UNDERSTANDING CIVIL SERVICES RECRUITMENT AND
POLICIES RELATED TO DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT IN PUBLIC
SECTOR: BARRIERS FACING PWDs
As shown above, organizing public employment is specified by regulations issued by the Council
of Ministers. In that light, the Civil Service Regulation, as amended no. 6 of 2022, defines a
public official according to Article 2 as: ‘The person appointed by a decision of the specialist,
in a position listed in the job formation schedule issued under the General Budget Law or the
budget of one of the departments, and the employee appointed under a contract, and does not
include the person who receives daily wages.’ This definition is only applicable to employees in
the public sector who are subject to civil service regulation, such as ministries. However, some
functions require special regulation because of the nature of their work, such as universities,
the military, police, intelligence, and judicial sectors.
In 2022, the Civil Service Regulation was reviewed (official Gazette n. 5767). Generally
speaking, as a rule, this regulation is not meant to create privileged working conditions for
state employees. Regardless, public sector jobs are considered to be more secure than private
ones, as shown in a study that shows workers feel most secure in permanent public sector
jobs, and least secure in temporary private sector jobs (Clark & Postel-Vinay 2009). The reason
for this is that, according to the Civil Service Regulation, the salaries and the categories, and
even the health insurance agreement are specified before the recruitment of the employee,
thus ensuring equal pay for equal work without any discrimination because of their disabilities.
The levels, grades, basic salaries, and annual increases for the employees of all categories are
determined according to the salary scale mentioned in Chapter VIP ‘Salaries and Allowances,’
of the Civil Service Regulation.
In examining the process of recruiting PWDs, it is imperative to emphasize the significance of
Article 44 as a foundational framework for employment and appointments within the public
sector. This article outlines the requisite criteria that candidates must satisfy to be considered
for appointment to any position. The Article stipulates that individuals who are appointed to
any office must possess Jordanian citizenship. According to the identification card issued by
the Jordanian Civil Status and Passports Department, an individual is deemed to have reached
the age of eighteen. However, in cases where the exact date of birth is unclear, it is assumed
that the individual was born on January 1st of the respective year. The individual’s age should
not surpass 48 years or the age specified by the Cabinet, with the condition that it does not
exceed 45 years. This criterion applies to individuals who are appointed based on the principles
of competition and ranking. The individual in question must not have been found guilty of a
crime or a misdemeanor that contravenes principles of integrity, ethics, morality, or societal
standards of decency. The candidate fulfills the necessary criteria and qualifications outlined
in the job description. Moreover, they should not hold the position of a company manager or a
merchant. These conditions are generally applicable, ensuring that all individuals are treated
without prejudice, and ensuring that individuals in similar circumstances are treated equitably
in both legal and practical contexts. Nevertheless, the process of job selection should adhere
to the criteria outlined in the job advertisement, with a clear differentiation among applicants
based on their qualifications. Ultimately, the goal is to identify and choose the most competent
and fitting candidate for the position.
Nevertheless, Article 45 provides a specific provision that regulates the recruitment of PWDs in
the public sector, stipulating,
Despite what is stated in paragraph (d) of Article (44) of this regulation, persons with
disabilities are appointed by the instructions for selecting and appointing employees
to government jobs of the first, second, and third categories and comprehensive
contracts according to a report issued by the Equal Opportunities Committee formed
in the HCD by the terms it adopts, and the department is committed to providing the
necessary accommodations to enable them to work.
Given that, the following article must be read by the instructions for selecting and appointing
employees in government jobs from the first, second, and third categories as amended in 2023,
mainly Chapter Five, titled ‘Humanitarian Recruitment.’
10Al-Zu’bi and Hilal
Scandinavian Journal of
Disability Research
DOI: 10.16993/sjdr.1072
Under Article 31/1/A, a committee shall be formed from the Civil Service Bureau, the Ministry of
Health, the Ministry of Social Development, and the HCD by a decision of the president of the
Civil Service Bureau, which considers applications submitted by PWDs according to the legal
definition of Article 3 of the LRPD, and the department is committed to providing the necessary
accommodations to enable them to work by the provisions of Article 45 of the civil service
regulation. In addition, Article 31/C provides that the first, second, and third categories are
allocated annually 4% of the vacancies to PWDs. The Civil Service Bureau is responsible for
distributing these jobs according to the specific nature of the work of the department and the
distribution of jobs in it.
Given the above, according to the Civil Service Regulation, the hiring process in the public
sector depends on either candidates’ competency (skills, experience, and abilities in holding
the assigned job) or on humanitarian grounds (candidates are mainly disabled, orphans, and
poor) when applying for a specific category. In that light, the quota system cited in Article (25)
of LRPD no. (20) of 2017, obliges the public sector to ensure that a certain proportion of their
employees are PWDs; as shown above, there are a maximum of 4% of vacancies for PWDs, but
this percentage can be increased by the decision of the president of the Civil Service Bureau.
The 4% percentage of recruitment of PWDs is limited to certain categories: first, second, and
third categories with comprehensive contracts. Therefore, there are special categories that
do not consider the percentage of recruitment of PWDs. For example, the positions of senior
level category, and leadership positions, which are regulated by the regulation of appointment
to leadership positions and its amendments no. 34 of 2021 by Article 3, does not specify a
percentage for the recruitment of PWDs as it stipulates that ‘this provision applies to all
applicants applying to occupy leadership positions.’ In that light, this regulation does not
provide for a special text securing positive measures to empower PWDs in leadership positions.
Undoubtedly, many PWDs lack the skills and experience needed to compete with others in
the labor market. As a result, this makes competition for work difficult for PWDs and increases
inequality in employment (Opoku et al. 2017).
These Articles mentioned above contain terms that confer a large margin of discretionary
power on the President of the Civil Service Bureau and the Medical Committees. For instance,
the Civil Service Bureau distributes positions to PWDs according to ‘the specificity of the
nature of the work.’ Thus, it is left to the discretion of the bureau to decide whether the job
opening is suitable for PWDs. So, to avoid possible discrimination against PWDs, action must be
taken to revoke any misuse of this power. Also, the job descriptions in civil service regulations
are usually designed in standard terms with no regard for PWDs’ needs. This may create a
mismatch between job openings and the requirements for someone with an impairment
(Vornholt et al. 2018). Hence, these special conditions render the articles vastly susceptible to
manipulation during the process of hiring PWDs. They could use these loopholes as an excuse
not to employ PWDs under the pretext of having too few vacancies that are accessible for
PWDs. Consequently, the nature of the work is manipulated by the job description, which can
quite easily get around their implementation (Louvet 2007). These terms conflict with the text
of the LRPD, which declares that disability in itself does not constitute a barrier to considering a
person suitable for work. In that regard, the executive summary of the second annual report to
monitor the conditions of persons with disabilities and their rights for the year 2020 indicated
that official institutions employ PWDs and then their services are arbitrarily terminated without
any legal accountability, and the employment process is only fictitious (HCD 2021).
Furthermore, when considering the recruitment procedure about the state of physical fitness,
medical reports must adhere to the guidelines outlined in the Instructions for Issuing Medical
Committee Reports for Persons with Disabilities, specifically number 3 of 2018, as well as the
regulations stipulated in the Medical Reports and Committees bylaw no. 13 of 2014. In the annual
report released by the HCD in 2021, it was highlighted that the primary challenge faced by the
HCD in the process of appointing PWDs in the Public Sector relates to the continued application
of Article 17/A/1 of the Medical Reports and Committees bylaw no. 13 of 2014. This article refers
to Table No. 1 of diseases that disqualify individuals from appointments and scholarships.
The article outlines several conditions that must be met by individuals seeking employment,
including possessing a sufficient level of intelligence, normal hearing, and being free from ear
diseases that may hinder job performance (Table 1, Annex). Additionally, it stipulates that
11Al-Zu’bi and Hilal
Scandinavian Journal of
Disability Research
DOI: 10.16993/sjdr.1072
individuals must not have any visual defects or diseases that may impact their ability to carry out
their job responsibilities. By the provisions outlined in Article 17/A/1 of the Medical Reports and
Committees bylaw No. 13 of 2014, as well as Table no. 1, which specifies diseases that hinder
individuals from being appointed or receiving scholarships, it can be observed that PWDs are
denied the opportunity to enter public employment in a manner that upholds principles of equity
and equal opportunities in comparison to their non-disabled counterparts. Unfortunately, the act
of showing preference towards an individual with a particular disability may result in the unjust
treatment and violation of the rights of individuals with different disabilities (Bennett et al. 2005).
The preceding provisions exhibit inconsistency and contradiction with Article 25/A of LRPD no.
20 of 2017, which explicitly prohibits the act of excluding individuals from employment based
on their disability. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the civil service regulation exhibits a
contradiction within its Article 4. This particular article explicitly emphasizes the significance
of equal chances, non-discrimination, and competence as fundamental principles and
prerequisites for appointments, which must not be infringed upon.
Along these lines, this finding can be ascribed to the notion that mandating the integration of
PWDs into the workforce within the public sector is regarded as a positive measure. However,
it is insufficient unless accompanied by the provision of accessible work environments and
transportation networks. Additionally, the governing bodies of the public sector bear the
responsibility of establishing policies, offering guidance, and overseeing the implementation
process (Ababneh 2016). Consequently, meeting these requirements will necessitate further
endeavors from both the legislative body and the government, which may involve the
establishment of law enforcement mechanisms and the creation of an authoritative body
responsible for overseeing and regulating the enforcement of LRPD no. 20 of 2017.
Practically, the Civil Service Bureau monitors the commitment of government departments in
ministries and public institutions to achieve the specified quotas, taking into consideration the
following elements: the type of disability, the qualifications of the candidate, the nature of the
vacant position, and the work environment of the departments. However, they deal with these
elements flexibly due to the scarcity of available positions because of various factors; these
include the economic conditions facing Jordan, forms of disability that may not align with the
nature of the vacant position, and the unsuitability of the work environment for persons with
disabilities, resulting in non-compliance with the specified quotas under the law.
The Director of the Civil Service Bureau highlighted the main obstacles and difficulties facing
persons with disabilities; these include unemployment and limited job opportunities in civil
service. There is a general issue of unemployment, and job opportunities in the civil service
are limited, except for an increase in appointments in the health and education sectors.
Moreover, there are fundamental issues in educational production inputs concerning the study
of persons with disabilities in stagnant and saturated specializations. Namely, the scarcity of
vacancies in the public sector, and assessing the practical indicators of supply and demand for
specializations in the civil service for university graduates and comprehensive diploma holders
from community colleges and universities. As noted by Schur et al. (2017), ‘[lower average levels
of education] causes employment rates to decline, and for those who are employed, lower
education levels may combine with lower levels of training, functional abilities, and health to
lead to lower productivity, wages, and promotion rates.’ Thus, unless barriers to education are
adequately addressed, employment for persons with disabilities will remain a distant dream.
Furthermore, the lack of access is one of the fundamental reasons for inequalities. Individuals
with visual and hearing impairments face challenges in obtaining an academic degree due to a
lack of facilitative arrangements in schools, colleges, and universities that would enable them
to exercise their right to education on an equal basis. Unfortunately, What Turmusani (1999)
highlighted 24 years ago could still be applied today, ‘disabled people were not consulted as to
the type of employment they wanted.’
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Director of the Bureau stated that Jordan is shifting towards hiring instead of traditional
employment to change the societal culture towards public service, given the limited number
of newly created positions in the public sector. Therefore, a program was established between
12Al-Zu’bi and Hilal
Scandinavian Journal of
Disability Research
DOI: 10.16993/sjdr.1072
the Higher Council and the Institute of Public Administration to empower persons with
disabilities by building their capacities and preparing them for the job market in both the public
and private sectors. This is achieved through their rehabilitation and transition from stagnant
specializations to professions that are in demand. The program also focuses on exploring
alternative opportunities and professions needed by the local job market.
To ensure the commitment of governmental entities (ministries and institutions) to respect
the employment quotas for individuals with disabilities, they are required to annually report
on the actual percentage of positions held by people with disabilities as well as the shortage
along with reasons and justifications for the failure to meet the specified quotas as per the law.
If the entity fails to justify the shortage, they are considered liable and required to provide an
equivalent amount for the total salaries and other financial entitlements that would have been
allocated for employing individuals with disabilities to be deposited into a designated account
under the label ‘Employment Fund for Persons with Disabilities in Public Positions,’ supervised
by the State. The purpose of this fund is to provide opportunities related to the employment of
individuals with disabilities in the public sector.
‘A commitment to respect for human dignity requires a focus not on sameness or identical
treatment but on individual flourishing’ (Lawson 2008). Thus, the adoption of national
legislation, plans, and strategies that uphold the principle of substantive equality between
persons with disabilities and other citizens is crucial. The differences in their legal status
necessitate consideration of their needs to facilitate their access to employment, especially
regarding the work environment by, for example, recognizing their right to reasonable tailored
work accommodation and suitable working hours.
The implementation of disability-related laws and regulations is often poorly enforced. The
UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities urged Jordan to establish an
independent mechanism to promote and monitor the implementation of the Convention,
under Article 33(2), to bridge implementation gaps in disability rights (Quinn 2023). The Medical
Committees Bylaw excluded certain categories of PWDs from filling certain jobs. According to
Table 1, governing the terms and conditions that must be met for employment, PWDs are
deprived of their right to employment due to disability-based discrimination.
7. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, an examination of the progression of laws and public policies about the
accessibility of employment for individuals with disabilities reveals the persistence of numerous
problems. Notably, the Medical Reports and Committees bylaw No. 13 of 2014, which imposes
restrictions on some groups of individuals with disabilities, preventing them from pursuing
specific job opportunities. Furthermore, the quota system implemented by LRPD no. 20 of
2017 is regarded as a provisional and extraordinary measure, serving as the sole means to
guarantee job opportunities for PWDs. However, it is imperative to replace this system with
a more sustainable solution that facilitates the integration of PWDs into the workforce in the
long run. The absence of statistical data on the proportion of employees with disabilities in the
public sector is a significant challenge for development practitioners in accurately assessing
the extent and magnitude of this issue. Consequently, it hinders their ability to design effective
programs aimed at addressing this problem.
Moreover, as demonstrated by this study, it is imperative that LRPD no. 20 of 2017 and other
legislation pertaining to public employment are not merely proclaimed on paper, but rather
properly enforced. Unfortunately, the architecture of public buildings in Jordan lacks sufficient
accessibility for a significant portion of individuals with disabilities. There exists a significant
disparity between the legislative framework, which endeavors to enhance accessibility for PWDs,
and the actual practices that have arisen during its execution. These practices have resulted in the
marginalization of PWDs and a reduction in their involvement within the public sector. To ensure
equal job opportunities for individuals with disabilities, it is imperative to effectively integrate
prevailing legal structures with the accessibility of physical infrastructure, including buildings and
transportation systems. Additionally, it is crucial to address and mitigate architectural obstacles
present in public facilities and transportation networks. Theoretically, according to LRPD no. 20 of
2017, it is mandated that public sector buildings should possess accessibility features. However,
it is evident that in reality, this requirement is frequently disregarded.
13Al-Zu’bi and Hilal
Scandinavian Journal of
Disability Research
DOI: 10.16993/sjdr.1072
To effectively address the notable deficiencies in disability policy, Jordan must implement
legislation that explicitly prohibits discrimination based on various forms of disabilities,
encompassing physical, mental, and visual impairments. Furthermore, it is crucial to establish
mechanisms for enforcing compliance with these regulations to ensure that appropriate
punishments are imposed for any instances of non-compliance. Furthermore, it is imperative
to undertake endeavors aimed at the successful execution of efficient policies to eliminate
obstacles that impede the ability of PWDs to obtain employment opportunities in Jordan. The
desired outcome is for the government to adhere to the underlying principles of the UNCRPD
rather than strictly adhering to its literal language. Overall, these deficiencies suggest that
the level of protection for PWDs in the context of employment is characterized by a gradual
improvement, though it remains inadequate.
ANNEX
COMPETING INTERESTS
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
FIRST: CONDITIONS TO BE MET UPON
APPOINTMENT
SECOND: DISEASES THAT PREVENT HIRING
1. Sufficient degree of intelligence.
2. Normal hearing and no otitis or ear diseases that
may prevent functioning.
3. The integrity of the eyes from any deficiency
or disease that may affect their functioning,
sufficient visual is ruled as follows:
a. Visual acuity is 6/12 in each eye or 6/6 in one
eye and 6/18 in the other, with or without
glasses, with the denominator in both eyes no
more than 24.
b. Eyeglasses may be used with a lens strength
of no more than eight diopters.
c. In contact lenses, the strength of the lens
should not exceed minus five and a half or
plus eight and a half diopters.
The method of calculating the strength of
lenses in eyeglasses is algebraically grouped
according to the following example:
The power of the lens is *180 × 2.00 + / 5.00+
6.00 + = 2/2 + 5.00+
or
The power of the lens is 180 × 4.00 –/ 3.000+
1.00 = (–4) + 3.00 + 1.00 = (–4) + 3.00+
Visual strength for non-professional and non-
technical categories: (Occupations that do not
require normal visual power or above care in
both eyes and have a total denominator in
both eyes of no more than 36)
Vision must be at least 6/18, 6/18, 6/6, 6/24
with or without glasses.
Color Vision:
Character and color differentiation is required
for both professional and technical categories.
4. Efficiency of linguistic skills.
5. Efficiency of the heart and lungs.
6. Healthy rib cage and lack of defective
abnormalities.
7. The integrity of the limbs, spine, and joints to be
free from defects affecting the nature of work.
1. Large hernias and similar types and/or large
Meningocele and similar types that keep the
employee from doing their work as usual, until
recovery as per the rules.
2. Uncurable Hemocoel and Elephantiasis based on
a medical report from a general surgeon.
3. A disease that leads to the removal of the spleen,
unless it is already removed and the patient has
fully recovered.
4. Pulmonary tuberculosis until recovery.
5. Chronic allergic bronchiolitis, and bacterial
inflammation accompanied by a change in
the shape of the chest and obvious clinical
abnormalities in the lungs.
6. Subacute pulmonary diseases of various types
and causes as well as pulmonary abscesses and
clusters Psoriasis (genetic effusion) and other
chest infections until they heal.
7. Malignant tumors that have not been cured.
8. Benign tumors if they prevent functioning, until
removed.
9. Albumin that does not respond to treatment.
10. Unresponsive Addison’s disease.
11. Uncontrolled epilepsy that goes against the
nature of the work (controlled epilepsy means
seizure-free epilepsy during the last three years).
12. Terminal mental disorders and mental
retardation.
13. AIDS patient with limitations on tasks and job
duties.
14. Irreversible and Organic heart diseases.
Table 1 Diseases that prevent
appointment or scholarship
of 2015.
14Al-Zu’bi and Hilal
Scandinavian Journal of
Disability Research
DOI: 10.16993/sjdr.1072
AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS
Hadeel Al-Zu’bi orcid.org/0000-0003-1766-2150
University of Jordan, Jordan
Ghofran Hilal orcid.org/0000-0001-8427-0291
University of Jordan, Jordan
REFERENCES
Ababneh, Raed Ismail. 2016. “Disabled Employees in Jordanian Public Sector: An Exploratory Study.”
International Journal of Public Sector Management 29(2): 164–182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJPSM-03-2015-0041
Ababneh, Raed Ismail, and Aseel Al-Shaik. 2020. “Working Women with Disabilities: Evidence from
the Jordanian Public Sector.” International Journal of Organizational Analysis 29(2): 322–341. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-12-2019-1970
Albin, Einat. 2015. “Universalizing the Right to Work of Persons with Disabilities: An Equality and Dignity Based
Approach.” The Right to Work (Hart, Oxford 2015), Hebrew University of Jerusalem Legal Research, 15-09.
Al-Majali, Al-Majeed. 2008. The Rights of Disabled People in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan as Per the
National Legislative System and International Standards. National Centre for Human Rights.
Bennett, Michael, Sharon Roberts, and Howard Davis. 2005. “The Way Forward—Positive Discrimination
or Positive Action?” International Journal of Discrimination and the Law 6(3): 223–249. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1177/135822910500600303
Bitar, Lena. 2013. “The Right to Employment for Persons with Disabilities: A Study on Jordan.” Master’s
Thesis, University of Oslo.
Borg, Johan, Stig Larsson, and Per-Olof Östergren. 2011. “The Right to Assistive Technology: for Whom,
for What, and by Whom?” Disability & Society 26(2): 151–167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0968759
9.2011.543862
CESCR. 1994. General Comment no. 5: Persons with Disabilities. UN Doc. E/1995/22.
Chevallier, Jacques. 2011. “Réflexions Conclusives sur ‘Handicap Et Aptitude A L’emploi’.” Revue de Droit
Sanitaire et Social 5: 873–880.
Clark, Andrew, and Fabien Postel-Vinay. 2009. “Job Security and Job Protection.” Oxford Economic
Papers 61(2): 207–239. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpn017
Conrad, Thomas R. 1976. “The Debate About Quota Systems: an Analysis.” American Journal of Political
Science, 135–149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2110514
CRPD. 2012. “Consideration of Reports Submitted Byby States Parties Under Article 35 of the Convention
Initial Reports of States Parties Due in 2010 Jordan.” CRPD/C/JOR/1.
Demmke, Christoph. 2005. “Are Civil Servants Different Because They are Civil Servants?” Présidence
luxembourgeoise du Conseil de l’Union européenne, 1–127.
Emens, Elizabeth F. 2012. “Framing Disability.” University Of Illinois Law Review 5: 1383–1442.
Goss, David, Fiona Goss, and Derek Adam-Smith. 2000. “Disability and Employment: a Comparative
Critique of UK Legislation.” International Journal of Human Resource Management 11(4): 807–821.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190050075132
Harpur, Paul. 2012. “Embracing the New Disability Rights Paradigm: the Importance of the Convention on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.” Disability & Society 27(1): 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0
9687599.2012.631794
Hasegawa, Tamako. 2007. “Equality of Opportunity or Employment Quotas? -A Comparison of Japanese
and American Employment Policies for the Disabled.” Social science Japan Journal 10(1): 41–57. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1093/ssjj/jym032
HCD. 2021. “Annual Report. Issued by the Higher Council for Persons with Disabilities to Monitor the
Conditions of Persons with Disabilities and their Rights in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.”
Accessed 02/05/2024. Available at 2020-2019 resized.pdf (hcd.gov.jo).
Kanter, Arlene. 2007. “The Promise and Challenge of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities.” Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 34: 287–321.
Kazou, Katerina. 2017. ‘Analysing the Definition of Disability in the UN Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities: Is it Really Based on a ‘Social Model’ Approach?” International Journal of
Mental Health and Capacity Law 23: 1–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19164/ijmhcl.v2017i23.630
Lang, Raymond, Maria Kett, Nora Groce, and Jean-François Trani. 2011. “Implementing the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Principles, Implications, Practice
and Limitations.” ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 5(3): 206–220. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.alter.2011.02.004
Lawson, Anna. 2008. Disability and Equality Law in Britain: The Role of Reasonable Adjustment. London:
Bloomsbury Publishing.
15Al-Zu’bi and Hilal
Scandinavian Journal of
Disability Research
DOI: 10.16993/sjdr.1072
TO CITE THIS ARTICLE:
Al-Zu’bi, Hadeel, and Ghofran
Hilal. 2024. “Access to Public
Employment for Persons
with Disabilities in Jordan:
Legal Framework, Policy,
and Barriers.” Scandinavian
Journal of Disability Research
26(1): 1–15. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.16993/sjdr.1072
Submitted: 16 August 2023
Accepted: 23 January 2024
Published: 12 February 2024
COPYRIGHT:
© 2024 The Author(s). This is an
open-access article distributed
under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (CC-BY
4.0), which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author
and source are credited. See
http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/.
Scandinavian Journal of
Disability Research is a peer-
reviewed open access journal
published by Stockholm
University Press.
Lepofsky, M. David, and Randal N. M. Graham. 2009. “Universal Design in Legislative Drafting-how to
Ensure Legislation is Barrier-Free for People with Disabilities.” National Journal of Constitutional Law
27: 129.
Liao, Juan. 2021. “The Quota System for Employment of Persons with Disabilities in China: Policy, Practice,
Barriers, and Ways Forward.” Disability & Society 36(2): 326–331. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09687
599.2020.1833311
Louvet, Eva. 2007. “Social Judgment Toward Job Applicants with Disabilities: Perception of Personal
Qualities and Competences.” Rehabilitation Psychology 52(3): 297–303. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1037/0090-5550.52.3.297
Macy, Granger. 1996. “Accommodating Employees with Disabilities: A Matter of Attitude.” Journal of
Managerial Issues 8(1): 78–91.
Mettävainio, Blenda Isaksson, and Christina Ahlgren. 2004. “Facilitating Factors for Work Return in
Unemployed with Disabilities.” Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy 11(1): 17–25. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/1138120410019054
Opoku, Maxwell Peprah, Wisdom Kwadwo Mprah, Joslin Alexei Dogbe, Joash Norman Moitui, and Eric
Badu. 2017. “Access to Employment in Kenya: The Voices of Persons with Disabilities.” International
Journal on Disability and Human Development 16(1): 77–87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijdhd-2015-
0029
Quinn, Gerard. 2023. “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.” Human
Rights Council, fifty-second session, A/HRC/52/32/Add.2.
Rutherford, Kenneth R. 2007. “Jordan and Disability Rights: A Pioneering Leader in the Arab World.”
Review of Disability Studies: An International Journal 3(4): 1–17.
Schur, Lisa, Kyongji Han, and Andrea Kim. 2017. “Disability at Work: A Look Back and Forward.” Journal
of Occupational Rehabilitation 27(4): 482–497. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-017-9739-5
Schuster, Christian. 2017. “Legal Reform Need Not Come First: Merit-Based Civil Service Management in
Law and Practice.” Public Administration 95(3): 1–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12334
Thompson, Stephen. 2018. “The Current Situation of Persons with Disabilities in Jordan, K4D Helpdesk
Report. Brighton.” UK: Institute of Development Studies.
Turmusani, Majid. 1999. “The Economic Needs of Disabled People in Jordan: From the Personal to the
Political Perspective.” Disability Studies Quarterly 19(1).
Vornholt, Katharina, Patrizia Villotti, Beate Muschall et al. 2018. “Disability and Employment—Overview
and Highlights.” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 27(1): 40–55. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1387536
Waddington, Lisa. 2011. “Reasonable Accommodation: Time to Extend the Duty to Accommodate
Beyond Disability?” NTM|NJCM-Bulletin 36(2): 186–198.
