Complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act: Assessing the Costs of Reasonable Accommodation

Hollwitz, John; Goodman, Deborah F.; Bolte, Dean

doi:10.1177/009102609502400204

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rewards (e.g., high performance ratings and promotions) and punishments in the organization (e.g., demotions and firings) are based largely on an employee's work-related behavior. It is, in fact, illegal to take many personal events (topics of social gossip), such as marriage, a major illness, or a change of housing, into account when determining such rewards and punishments (Hollwitz, Goodman, & Bolte, 1995;Madison & Knudson-Fields, 1987). Although some managers still consider those personal factors when allocating resources, legislation (and the possibility of costly lawsuits) constrains their ability to do so.…”

Section: Moderators Of Linkages Between Gossip and Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

Passing the Word: Toward a Model of Gossip and Power in the Workplace

Kurland

Pelled

2000

AMR

245

295

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although gossip is widespread, seldom has it been a topic of management research. Here we build a conceptual model oi workplace gossip and its eifects on the power oi employees who initiate it. After defining and distinguishing among different kinds o(workplace gossip, we develop propositions about Ihe effect of that gossip on gosslpers' expert, referent, reward, and coercive power. We then suggest how moderators may shape those effects and discuss implications of the model. As early as the Hawthorne Studies (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1943), management scholars recognized the existence of the informal organization. Unlike the formal organization, which appears in organization charts and reflects prescribed patterns for officially sanctioned messages, the informal organization consists of spontaneous, emergent patterns that result from individuals' discretionary choices (Stohl, 1995: 65). This informal network, also called the grapevine (e.g., Baird, 1977; Daniels, Spiker, & Papa, 1997), has received considerable attention in the years since its discovery (e.g., Davis, 1953; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Krackhardt & Hanson, 1993; Podolny & Baron, 1997). Still, there is a need for closer examination of its specific componentsfor example, rumor, "catching up," and gossip (Goldsmith & Baxter, 1996). Accordingly, in this article we explore one such component: workplace gossip. Although psychologists (e.g.. Fine & Rosnow, 1978), sociologists (e.g., Eder & Enke, 1991), and anthropologists (e.g., Dunbar, 1996) have examined the nature and role of gossip in larger society, scholars have yet to develop a conceptual model of workplace gossip-or even agree on We are grateful for comments Chris Earley and three anonymous reviewers provided. We also thank Tom Cummings,

show abstract

Section: Moderators Of Linkages Between Gossip and Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

Passing the Word: Toward a Model of Gossip and Power in the Workplace

Kurland

Pelled

2000

AMR

245

295

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibited employment discrimination based on disability in the federal government and served as a foundation for the EEO requirements in the ADA (Ledvinka, 2010). Although much of the ADA’s essential employment language was derived from the Rehabilitation Act which was enacted almost two decades earlier, on passage of the ADA there remained significant uncertainty regarding how to comply with the law’s essential terms (Ara, 2010; Hollwitz, Goodman, & Bolte, 1995).…”

Section: Challenges and Consequences For Public Human Resource Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Amending the Americans with Disabilities Act

Rush

2012

Review of Public Personnel Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examines changing public human resources obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). During the first 12 years after ADA implementation, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several rulings that narrowly construed who qualified as disabled (Albertson's v. Kirkingburg; Murphy v. United Parcel Services; Sutton v. United Airlines; Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams). In 2008, Congress responded to these judicial interpretations by specifically rejecting the Supreme Court's analysis and unequivocally stating the intent to expand the scope of protection under the ADA. This interbranch dialog over ADA interpretation challenges public employers to predict responsibilities under shifting ADA requirements. Furthermore, analysis suggests that both the original statute and the 2008 Amendments Act suffer from a lack of clarity regarding who qualifies as disabled. Public human resource managers must evaluate how best to meet their ADA obligations in this climate of legal ambiguity and fiscal uncertainty. Legal Briefat WEST VIRGINA UNIV on April 12, 2015 rop.sagepub.com Downloaded from of 1990. Congress mandated employer responsibilities in the ADA, the Supreme Court then narrowed the scope of ADA protection in several key cases, and Congress recently responded with amendments that specifically rejected the High Court's interpretation. While the judicial and legislative branches debate the extent of the ADA's protections, public human resource managers may be left questioning how to avoid disobeying the ADA's requirements for EEO.The recent amendments to obligations under the ADA suggest a key question: What are the most significant human resource implications of the changes to the ADA? This analysis considers the recent judicial interpretation and legislative revisions that influence requirements under Title I of the ADA to consider how public employers can best respond to changing ADA obligations.The ADA provides expansive protection against discrimination based on disability in public services, public accommodation, communications, and employment. Consequently, the scope of the ADA's impact on public employers' operations is very broad. Title I of the ADA protects persons with disabilities from workplace discrimination and during the period between 1999 and 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several landmark decisions that interpreted the scope of coverage under Title I narrowly (Albertson's v.

show abstract

“…3) Multiply the average importance and frequency ratings of the job that needs accommodations, and multiply the result by the answer from step 2. This gives you the value of the activity to the company (Hollwitz, 1995).…”

Section: Financial and Technical Assistancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The current job holders should then evaluate these duties based on importance to the performance of the job and based on how frequently the duties are performed. Those tasks that have either above average importance of performance or above average frequency can then be classified as essential job functions (Hollwitz, 1995).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The interactive process required to provide reasonable accommodation of disabilities under the ADA

Neuman¹,

Kleiner²

2000

Equal Opportunities International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) went into effect in 1992 with the express purpose of reducing unemployment among people with a disability. A disability is defined as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more...major life activities", such as walking, standing, and lifting (EEOC, 1992). (State and local laws may have a broader definition to include other activities).The ADA applies to companies with 15 or more employees and states that an employer cannot dismiss a qualified applicant because of a disability. The employer must determine if it can provide reasonable accommodations (those that do not cause a significant difficulty or expense on the firm) to allow the qualified applicant to do the job (EEOC, 1992).Employers are required to provide accommodations in the following three areas: 1) The application process, 2) The essential functions of a job, and 3) The benefits of employment (EEOC, 1992). Required Interactive ProcessThe EEOC requires that the following interactive process be used to ensure that reasonable accommodations are provided where possible:Step 1: Job Definition ADA Requirement: Since reasonable accommodations must be made to enable a qualified individual to perform essential job functions, the first step is to determine these essential functions and the job's purpose.The EEOC is more inclined to believe that certain functions are essential if they are: 1) Mentioned in the job description when the job is first advertised, and 2) Reviewed when interviewing applicants (EEOC, 1992).Recommended Model: The employer should compile a complete list of the job's duties by talking with current job holders, by observing these people performing the job, and by noting duties listed in established job descriptions. The current job holders should then evaluate these duties based on importance to the performance of the job and based on how frequently the duties are performed. Those tasks that have either above average importance of performance or above average frequency can then be classified as essential job functions (Hollwitz, 1995).

show abstract

Complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act: Assessing the Costs of Reasonable Accommodation

Cited by 7 publications

References 1 publication

Passing the Word: Toward a Model of Gossip and Power in the Workplace

Passing the Word: Toward a Model of Gossip and Power in the Workplace

Amending the Americans with Disabilities Act

The interactive process required to provide reasonable accommodation of disabilities under the ADA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About