The EEOC Charge Priority Policy and Claimants With Psychiatric Disabilities

Abstract

The strong relationship between being assigned high priority and receiving benefits as a result of filing a charge demonstrates the importance of accurate priority categorization. The finding that people with psychiatric disabilities are less likely than others to benefit from their claims is cause for concern, particularly given the fact that the accuracy of the charge prioritization system has not been validated.

Labor Market Outcomes of Persons with Mental Disorders

“…Throughout the period in which the ADA was implemented (1992–1998), persons with mental disorders were less likely to have findings of reasonable cause for a discrimination complaint than persons with general medical disorders (Moss et al. 1999); charges from claimants with mental disorders were significantly less likely to be assigned a high‐priority level (Ullman et al. 2001); and claimants with mental disorders were significantly less likely to be referred to the EEOC mediation program to resolve employment disputes (Moss et al.…”

“…Empirical evidence from disability-related complaints filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), however, suggests the ADA may be less effective in combating workplace discrimination against persons with mental disorders than against persons with general medical disorders. Throughout the period in which the ADA was implemented (1992)(1993)(1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998), persons with mental disorders were less likely to have findings of reasonable cause for a discrimination complaint than persons with general medical disorders (Moss et al 1999); charges from claimants with mental disorders were significantly less likely to be assigned a highpriority level (Ullman et al 2001); and claimants with mental disorders were significantly less likely to be referred to the EEOC mediation program to resolve employment disputes (Moss et al 2002). Among persons whose charges were investigated by the EEOC, those with mental disorders had lower benefit rates than those with general medical disorders (Moss et al 1999).…”

Mental ill health and fitness for work

“…41 The prioritisation system seems to work against psychiatric claimants as higher priority cases are more likely to result in benefit and those claiming for psychiatric disabilities less likely to be assigned to this category. 42 There is little comparable data in the UK and there is a reliance on those cases that make it to the courts. These give a biased view but illustrate the potential pitfalls.…”

Public policy and employment of people with disabilities: exploring new paradigms

“…Benefit rates dropped significantly after the first three years of ADA implementation following the initiation, in June of 1995, of new procedures for processing claims. A follow-up analysis was conducted (Ullman, Johnsen, Moss, & Burris, 2001) to examine the outcomes of charges filed after the initiation of this new policy for processing claims. While prior policy required full investigation of all charges, under the new policy EEOC field office investigators classify cases into three tiers at intake as category A, indicating a high probability that discrimination occurred, category B, indicating that additional evidence is needed to support the occurrence of discrimination with further evidence to be gathered as resources permit, and category C, in which evidence of discrimination is not compelling or not covered under federal law and the claim is slated for immediate dismissal.…”