Employer Characteristics and Discharge-Related Discrimination Against People With Disabilities Under the Americans With Disabilities Act

Abstract

This article describes findings from a causal comparative study of the characteristics of employers against whom allegations of discrimination related to unlawful discharge were filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). People with disabilities filed these allegations under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) between 1992 and 2008. Employer characteristics derived from 140,581 closed discharge-related allegations were compared to and contrasted with 165,447 closed allegations aggregated from four other prevalent forms of discrimination including reasonable accommodations, hiring, disability harassment and intimidation, and terms and conditions of employment. Tests of Proportion were used to examine comparisons of employer characteristics along a variety of factors, including size of workforce, location, and industrial classification. As compared to nondischarge allegations, discharge allegations were more likely to be filed against employers (a) with 15 to 200 employees; (b) in the South U.S. Census Tract Region; and (c) in the Manufacturing, Health Care and Social Assistance, Retail, Administrative Support, Waste Management and Remediation, Finance and Insurance, Professional/Scientific/Technical, Accommodation and Food Service, Wholesale, Construction, Real Estate, and Agriculture/Forestry/Fishing/ Hunting industries. Additional research is needed to specify the mechanisms by which different employer characteristics influence patterns in allegations of discrimination pertaining to discharge, and human resource management (HRM) and human resource development (HRD) practices regarding ADA responsibilities must be developed with the aforementioned characteristics in mind.

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

“…Lee () postulates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has failed in its promise to provide more employment opportunities and legislation needs to be amended to fully support workers with physical (and other) disabilities in their plight to gain employment. Rumrill and Fitzgerald () undertook a review of allegations filed under the ADA between 1992 and 2008. The study found that the prevalence of discrimination and involuntary termination was in the manufacturing sector and related to unreasonable workplace accommodations, constructive dismissal, harassment and intimidation and unfair employment conditions.…”

The Unheard, Unseen, and Often Forgotten

“…Employees with disabilities “are disproportionally discharged or fired from their jobs when issues related to their disabilities become evident in the workplace” (Rumrill et al, 2010, p. 430). Unlawful discharge allegations are more common than constructive discharge, and are the most cited form of discrimination borne by employees with disabilities (Rumrill & Fitzgerald, 2010; Rumrill et al, 2010). Thirty-five percent of all ADA Title I allegations filed with the U.S.…”

“…Thirty-five percent of all ADA Title I allegations filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) since July 1992 have implicated employers in either unlawful discharge or constructive discharge (Rumrill & Fitzgerald, 2010; Rumrill et al, 2010). Allegers of discrimination have a one in five chance of prevailing in cases claiming either discharge or constructive discharge (Hurley, 2010).…”

“…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).…”

Workplace discrimination for persons with hearing loss: Before and after the 2008 ADA Amendments Act

“…They signal that the allegation is upheld, and that both sides either reached a settlement involving benefits to the Charging Party, or the EEOC concluded that discrimination likely did occur and the employer acted unlawfully. If we think of all closure studies in all NEARP findings, Merit resolutions generally hover around 24% of all closures [57]. The Merit closure finds that the allegation was not merely a Charging Party's perception of discrimination.…”