Mentally Ill Employees’ Quest for Justice in Litigation: Procedural and Distributive

Arbitration of accommodation in US workplaces: employee, stakeholder and human resources characteristics

“…An interesting analysis in their study was whether the arbitrator relied on the collective bargaining agreement, the ADA or both. They also distinguish between a grievance filed on behalf of the employee with a disability or a grievance filed on behalf of a co‐worker who was disadvantaged due to the accommodation to the employee with the disability. Litigation Resolution Accommodation for Physical and Mental Disabilities: LaVan (2019) examined litigated cases involving employees with mental illnesses in three points in time: 2005, 2010 and 2015. She empirically tested changes in employee prevailing rate over time and found there was a statistically significant difference in employees with mental illnesses prevailing between 2005 and 2015 ( χ 2 ‐square = 6.194, d.f.…”

“…LaVan (2019)examined the issue of how employees with mental illnesses receive justice in litigation. Her research considered litigation rather than arbitration.…”

“…While autocoding using NVivo or similar software is not widespread in the analysis of arbitration cases, it has been used to analyse a variety of similar documents: employment of individuals with mental illnesses (LaVan, 2019), employment litigation (Berrey et al ., 2012); ethics (Lock and Seele, 2015); and social responsibility reporting in financial statements (Huhmann and Conner, 2014). Moreover, it has been recommended as a multimethod approach to data analysis of qualitative data (Cook et al ., 2018; Irvine et al ., 2018; Maher et al ., 2018; Vogel et al ., 2018).…”

“…Hypothesis There is the relationship between illness in general (with respect to illness, medication, mental, and pain), illness primarily physical (with respect to injury, heart, and sleep) and mental illness (with respect to anxiety, depression, mental, and stress) and case outcomes in arbitration cases. There is a relationship between individual disability, injury, and illnesses and case outcomes in arbitration (Hudson, 2016; Kaminer, 2016; Kwan and Schultz, 2014; LaVan, 2019; Link et al ., 2018; MacAulay, 2010; Nevala et al ., 2015; Williams‐Whitt and Taras, 2010). …”

“…First, what accommodations are made for disabled (Foster and Scott, 2015; Nevala et al, 2015; William, 2016; William et al, 2019)? How are employees with mental illnesses accommodated (Hudson, 2016; Iannozzi, 2015; Kaminer, 2016; LaVan, 2019; Link et al, 2018; Nardodkar et al, 2016)? How does accommodation differ when the arbitration involves a discipline‐related issue (Allen and Lucero, 1998; Brand et al, 2008; Cooper, 2011; LaVan, 2007; Saundry et al, 2011; Wood et al, 2017)?…”