Workplace Discrimination Involving Charging Parties With Substance Use Disorders Under Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act

Abstract

The goal of this research was to describe allegations of discrimination, both actual and perceived, that were filed by individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) in comparison to a group of individuals with other physical disabilities (GENDIS) through analysis of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Integrated Mission System (IMS) database. An ex post facto, causal comparative quantitative design was used to examine Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title I allegations received by the EEOC from charging parties with SUD from 1992 through 2011 (n= 8,432) in comparison to the GENDIS group over the same timeframe (n= 82,618). Results revealed statistically significant differences in the patterns of issues alleged by the two groups. In addition, compared to the GENDIS comparison group, the SUD group was significantly younger, had a significantly higher proportion of males, had proportionally more individuals who identified as Caucasian and as Other, and had proportionally fewer individuals who identified as Hispanic/Mexican and Asian. Charging parties with SUD were significantly less likely than the GENDIS group to have their allegations result in a merit-based case resolution. Implications for rehabilitation practice and further research are discussed.