Workplace accommodations, vital for employees with disabilities, promote diversity and inclusion efforts in organizations. This article examines who requests accommodations and who is more likely to have requests granted. We investigate the roles of individual characteristics and their intersection, including disability, sexual orientation, gender, race/ethnicity, and age. Methods: Using data from a national survey of U.S. lawyers, we estimate the odds of requesting accommodations and having the requests approved. We also estimate differences in odds according to individual characteristics, adjusting for control variables. Results: Personal identity factors, such as disability status, gender, and age, predict requests for accommodations. Odds of requesting accommodations were higher for women and people with disabilities as compared to men and those without disabilities, but lower for older individuals. Odds of requesting accommodations were higher for an older population segment-older lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (LGBQ) lawyers-than for younger lawyers. Accommodations were granted differentially to individuals with multiple marginalized identities. Counter to predictions, being a person with a disability is negatively associated with having an accommodation granted. Older lawyers generally have higher odds of having accommodations granted, but odds for groups such as women and racial/ethnic minorities decline with age. LGBQ lawyers who are racial minorities have lower odds than White LGBQ lawyers of having their accommodations granted. Longer tenure increases the odds of requesting accommodations. Working for a private organization decreases the odds; working for a large organization generally increases the odds. Conclusions: Those most needing accommodations, such as lawyers with disabilities and women, are more likely to request accommodations. Disabled lawyers, older women lawyers, older racial/ethnic minority lawyers, and LGBQ minority lawyers have relatively low odds of having requests granted. The results highlight the need to consider intersectional identities in the accommodation process.

PurposeThis article is part of an ongoing body of investigation examining the experiences of lawyers with diverse and multiple minority identities, with particular focus on lawyers with disabilities; lawyers who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (“LGBTQ+” as an overarching term); and lawyers with minority identities associated with race and ethnicity, gender, and age. The focus of this article is on discrimination and bias in their workplaces as reported by the lawyers experiencing it.MethodsWe employ survey data from the first phase of this investigation, gathered from the survey responses of 3590 lawyers located across all states in the United States and working in most types and sizes of legal venues. The data were collected between 2018 and 2019, before the 2020 pandemic. We estimate differences across three categories of discrimination reported—subtle-only discrimination, overt-only discrimination, and both subtle and overt discrimination. We estimate the nature and magnitude of associations among individual and organizational variables, and we use multinomial logistic regression to illustrate relative risks of reports of discrimination for intersecting identities.ResultsAs compared to non-disabled lawyers, lawyers with disabilities show a higher likelihood of reporting both subtle and overt discrimination versus no discrimination. Similarly, lawyers who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (“LGBQ”) show a higher likelihood of reporting both subtle and overtdiscrimination, and subtle-only discrimination, as compared to lawyers who identify as straight/heterosexual. Women lawyers and lawyers of color are more likely to report all three types of discrimination. In general, younger lawyers are more likely to report subtle-only discrimination when compared to older lawyers. Lawyers working at a private firm are less likely to report all types of discrimination, while working for a larger organization is associated with a higher relative risk of reporting subtle-only discrimination versus no discrimination.ConclusionsThe current study represents a next, incremental step for better understanding non-monochromatic and intersectional aspects of individual identity in the legal profession. The findings illustrate that primary individual and multiple minority identities, as identified by disability, sexual orientation, gender, race/ethnicity, and age, are associated with reports of discrimination and bias in the legal workplace.

Purpose Given the training and experience of lawyers, we assumed that a study of lawyers’ willingness to disclose disability in the workplace would provide an example of the actions of a group knowledgeable about disability law. The current study accounts for the effect of visibility of disability, onset and type of disability, and whether the lawyer has made an accommodation request. We also investigate the role of other individual characteristics, such as sexual orientation, gender identity, race/ethnicity, age, and job-related characteristics, in willingness to disclose. Methods We use data from the first phase of a longitudinal national survey of lawyers in the USA to estimate the odds of disclosing disability to co-workers, management, and clients using proportional odds models. Results Lawyers with less visible disabilities, those with mental health disabilities, and those who work for smaller organizations have lower odds of disclosing to co-workers, management, and clients as compared to their counterparts. Attorneys who have requested accommodations are more willing to disclose as compared to those who have not, but only to co-workers and management. Women are less likely than men to disclose to management and clients. However, gender is not a significant determinant of disclosure to co-workers. Older attorneys are more likely to disclose to clients, whereas attorneys with children are less likely to disclose to co-workers. Lastly, lower perceived prejudice and the presence of co-workers with disabilities are associated with higher disclosure scores, but not for all groups. Conclusions Individuals who acquired a disability at a relatively early point in life and those with more visible disabilities are more likely to disclose. However, such willingness is affected by the intersection of disability with other individual and firm-level characteristics. Implications for Cancer Survivors. The findings imply that those with less visible disabilities and with health conditions acquired later in life are less likely to disclose. The relevance of the findings is heightened by the altered work conditions and demands imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic for cancer survivors.

No abstract

Purpose This article examines ways COVID-19 health surveillance and algorithmic decision-making (“ADM”) are creating and exacerbating workplace inequalities that impact post-treatment cancer survivors. Cancer survivors’ ability to exercise their right to work often is limited by prejudice and health concerns. While cancer survivors can ostensibly elect not to disclose to their employers when they are receiving treatments or if they have a history of treatment, the use of ADM increases the chances that employers will learn of their situation regardless of their preferences. Moreover, absent significant change, inequalities may persist or even expand. Methods We analyze how COVID-19 health surveillance is creating an unprecedented amount of health data on all people. These data are increasingly collected and used by employers as part of COVID-19 regulatory interventions. Results The increase in data, combined with the health and economic crisis, means algorithm-driven health inequalities will be experienced by a larger percentage of the population. Post-treatment cancer survivors, as for people with disabilities generally, are at greater risk of experiencing negative outcomes from algorithmic health discrimination. Conclusions Updated and revised workplace policy and practice requirements, as well as collaboration across impacted groups, are critical in helping to control the inequalities that flow from the interaction between COVID-19, ADM, and the experience of cancer survivorship in the workplace. Implications for Cancer Survivors The interaction among COVID-19, health surveillance, and ADM increases exposure to algorithmic health discrimination in the workplace.