A Comparison of Allegations and Resolutions Involving Issues of Discharge Versus Constructive Discharge: Implications for Diversity Management

Abstract

Patterns in discrimination allegations and resolutions in discharge ( n = 130,816) and constructive discharge ( n = 9,765) were examined in data provided by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Spanning the years from 1992 to 2008, these data indicated that the most prevalent disabling conditions in discharge and constructive discharge allegations were back injuries, nonparalytic/orthopedic conditions, depression, and diabetes. Characteristics of employees and employers distinguished between the two allegation types; for example, there were differences in the gender and racial/ethnic status of employees and in the location and industry of the employers. The rate of merit decisions, namely, EEOC decisions that discrimination actually occurred, was 20% for discharge and constructive discharge, indicating that employers, for the most part, rendered legitimate decisions. Findings indicate that people with more highly stigmatized disabilities were more likely to allege discrimination regarding constructive discharge, suggesting that adverse treatment may have caused them to exit employment. Implications for human resource development and management are discussed.

HRM practices that support the employment and social inclusion of workers with an intellectual disability

“…Employees within organisations that employ human resource (HR) practitioners must be aware of the connection between disability and critical HRM policies and practices (Nafukho, Roessler, & Kacirek, 2010). Roessler, Hurley and McMahon (2010) argue that human resource professionals could implement early identification and discrimination prevention programs to provide reasonable accommodations, and flexible work schedules for people with intellectual disabilities (Roessler, Hurley, & McMahon, 2010).…”

Supporting workers with disabilities: a scoping review of the role of human resource management in contemporary organisations

“…Only 5 of the 42 hotels had a diversity statement, none of which mentioned employees with physical disabilities, and only one hotel had a specific recruitment strategy for workers with physical disabilities. Roessler, Hurley, and McMahon () argue that most HR professionals have little knowledge of anti‐discrimination policies and are not cognisant of prevention programs aimed at anti‐discrimination practices. Further, many HR practitioners are unaware of intervention strategies that promote inclusion through, for example, non‐discriminatory work practices or flexible work schedules.…”

The Unheard, Unseen, and Often Forgotten

“…HRD can intervene on behalf of disabled employees to gain the “accommodations needed to contribute to the organizational mission” (Roessler et al, 2010, p. 420). Through ADA legislation, employers have a legal obligation to reasonably accommodate disabled employees during training as long as no undue hardship is incurred by the organization (Claus, 2012).…”

“…In HRDI , two articles were found on the prejudices of human resource students as future practitioners and their ambivalence toward the employment of disabled workers (Hidegh & Csillag, 2013), and on the mentoring of disabled employees (McDowall-Long, 2004). In ADHR , one issue contained five articles that covered allegations of discharge-related discrimination (Hurley, 2010; Rumrill, Fitzgerald, & McMahon, 2010) and discharge-related discrimination against employees with disabilities (Rumrill & Fitzgerald, 2010), and Roessler, Hurley, and McMahon (2010) and Hurley (2010) compared allegations and resolutions of discharge and constructive discharge discrimination with non-discharge discrimination. A fifth article discussed disability as a diversity factor (Nafukho, Roessler, & Kacirek, 2010).…”