Integrated Mission System Research Articles

The Workplace Discrimination Experiences of Americans With Disabilities: An Examination of Pacific and Northwest Regions

Background:The purpose of this study was to increase the body of knowledge regarding the workplace discrimination experiences of individuals with disabilities residing in the Pacific and Northwest (PNW) regions by exploring their allegations filed under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).Objective:The goals of this article are to describe region- and state-level patterns in workplace discrimination and to provide valuable information to stakeholders to better understand and address job discrimination within their respective areas of practice.Methods:The Integrated Mission System database documents every available closed allegation of job discrimination under the ADA. Data for each state include overall frequencies and proportions. Data are presented as respective national and regional rankings for comparison purposes. Descriptive and nonparametric statistics were obtained for each of the five specific research questions.Findings:Variables selected for study include the frequency of allegations, the impairment of the charging party, alternative prongs of the ADA definition of disability, the nature of the unlawful discrimination alleged (known as issues), and the outcome of the EEOC investigation (known as merit or nonmerit). These are presented in tables for ease of comparison. Finally, the next steps in research and other possibilities for knowledge translation are discussed.Conclusion:The findings suggest that workplace discrimination against individuals with disabilities varies significantly by state in the PNW, highlighting the need for tailored interventions at the state level. Differences in support services, advocacy, and public awareness about ADA protections contribute to these disparities. Future efforts should focus on enhancing ADA literacy and targeted interventions to address state-specific issues in reducing discrimination in the workplace.

Workplace discrimination allegations and outcomes involving Caucasian Americans, African Americans, and Hispanic/Latinx Americans with multiple sclerosis: A causal comparative analysis

BACKGROUND: Although African Americans and Hispanic/Latinx Americans with multiple sclerosis (MS) frequently cite workplace discrimination as a major concern, the specific nature of this discrimination is not yet well understood. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate racial/ethnic differences in allegations of workplace discrimination by Caucasian, African American, and Hispanic/Latinx American individuals with MS. METHODS: The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Integrated Mission System (IMS) database was used to describe and compare the frequency and characteristics of discrimination allegations filed by people with MS in the three race/ethnicity groups. Quantitative analyses, including a one-way analysis of variance and Chi-square tests, were used to examine 2009–2016 Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) Title I complaints. These complaints were received by the EEOC from people with MS who identified themselves as Caucasian, African American, and Hispanic/Latinx American (N = 3,770). RESULTS: Both African Americans and Hispanic/Latinx Americans tended to encounter discrimination at a younger age than Caucasian Americans. African American and Hispanic/Latinx American charging parties were more likely to be women than were Caucasian charging parties. The size and location of employers against whom allegations were filed varied significantly among the three racial/ethnic groups. The EEOC was more likely to resolve allegations in the charging parties’ favor when the allegations were filed by Caucasians. CONCLUSION: The present study revealed modest but significant differences in the workplace discrimination experiences of the three groups under study. More research is needed to determine why racial/ethnic status bears on the discrimination experiences of Americans with MS.

Workplace Discrimination Experiences of Americans With Alcohol Use Disorders and Americans With Drug Use Disorders: A Comparative Analysis

The purpose of this study was to investigate the patterns in allegations of workplace discrimination by individuals with alcohol use disorders (AUDs) relative to those with other drug use disorders (DUD). The goal of the research was to describe the uniqueness of workplace discrimination, both actual and perceived, that has occurred against individuals with AUD when compared to those with DUD 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 Amendments Act (ADAAA) Title I complaints received by the EEOC from individuals with AUD ( n = 2,123) from 2009 through 2016 in comparison to ADAAA Title I complaints received from individuals with DUD ( n = 1,472) over the same time period. Results revealed statistically significant differences in the patterns of issues alleged by the two groups. The AUD charging parties (individuals who filed the complaints) were, on average, significantly older and involved fewer African Americans than did the DUD comparison group. Individuals with AUD were significantly less likely than the DUD group to achieve merit closures when investigations were completed. This means that the DUD group’s investigations were more often closed as favorable to the charging party. Implications for rehabilitation practice and further research are discussed.

The employment discrimination experiences of younger and older Americans with cancer under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The goal of the research was to describe discrimination, both actual and perceived, that has occurred against younger individuals with cancer (i.e., 35years of age and under) in comparison with older individuals with cancer (i.e., over age 35) through analysis of the US 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 Amendments Act (ADAAA) Title I complaints received by the EEOC from younger people with cancer from 2009 through 2016 (n = 1001) in comparison with older people with cancer over the same time period (n = 8874). Results revealed statistically significant differences in the patterns of issues alleged by the two groups. When compared with older charging parties with cancer, the younger charging parties with cancer had proportionally more individuals who were male and who identified as African American and proportionally fewer individuals who identified as Caucasian. Younger people with cancer were more likely to allege discrimination in the areas of promotion, training, reinstatement, and referrals to other employers. They were less likely to allege discrimination in the area of benefits. The younger group was also significantly less likely than the older group to find that EEOC investigations of their allegations resulted in merit-based case resolutions, that is, discrimination had indeed occurred. Psychosocial programs and vocational programming assisting young adults with career development should focus on the types of discrimination that young adults experience, which is unique compared with older adult cancer survivors.

Comparing the Workplace Discrimination Experiences of Older and Younger Workers With Multiple Sclerosis Under the Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments Act

BackgroundIn this study, investigators examined the employment discrimination experiences of older workers (55 and over) with multiple sclerosis (MS) in comparison to younger adult workers with MS.ObjectiveTo examine age as a differential indicator of demographic characteristics of the Charging Parties, the discrimination issues alleged to occur, and the legal outcome of allegation investigations.MethodsThe study utilized data from the Integrated Mission System of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).ResultsFindings indicate that allegations filed by older Charging Parties with MS were more likely to come from Whites and Native Americans/Alaskan Natives. Allegations filed by older Charging Parties were less likely to come from African Americans. Allegations filed by older workers were less likely to involve reasonable accommodations and more likely to involve issues related to demotion. No significant differences were observed related to the types of case resolutions between the two groups.ConclusionsResults suggest that many of the workplace discrimination experiences of people with MS are common across age groups, indicating that the very presence of MS is likely the most salient factor in the discrimination experiences of Americans with MS. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.

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

Individuals with hearing loss experience unique barriers to employment frequently documented in the areas of communication and education. The purpose of this article is to contribute to extend this inquiry to the uniqueness of workplace discrimination involving persons with hearing loss. This study investigated differences in allegations of workplace discrimination filed by persons with hearing loss ("Hearing") compared to those filed by persons with other physical or neurological disabilities (General Disability, or "GENDIS") before and after the enactment of the 2008 Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (2008 Amendments). Using secondary data collected from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Integrated Mission System, we employ simple measures of proportion and odds ratios to describe differences between allegations derived from GENDIS and Hearing loss populations. These are population statistics, and not samples, of all allegations of discrimination reported to the EEOC through 2016. The comparisons involve Characteristics of the Charging Parties, Issues or discriminatory behaviors alleged, and closure statuses or Merit Rate of the EEOC's investigations - both before and after the 2008 Amendments. Following the 2008 Amendments, Charging Parties changed dramatically on age and gender status. Reasonable Accommodation, Hiring, Harassment, and employment Terms and Conditions showed unique features between groups and/or time periods. The "veracity" (confirmed truthfulness or merit) of the EEOC allegation (or Merit) rate also changed following the Amendments: higher for GENDIS; lower for Hearing. Possible rationale for these findings are offered, and new research questions are raised. Finally, implications for the cross-disability movement are presented.

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

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.

The workplace discrimination experiences of people with multiple sclerosis across three phases of Americans with Disabilities Act implementation

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the experiences with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of adults with multiple sclerosis (MS) across three phases of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) implementation: Phase I (pre-Sutton decision era, 1992–1999), Phase II (Sutton decision era, 2000–2008), and Phase III (ADA Amendments Act era, 2009–2011). OBJECTIVE: Research questions addressed differential (a) characteristics of charging parties and respondents, (b) patterns in the number and type of allegations, and (c) proportions of merit and non-merit EEOC judgments. METHODS: The study utilized data from the Integrated Mission System of the U.S. EEOC. RESULTS: Findings indicated that proportionally more women and Hispanic adults with MS filed claims during Phases II and III than during Phase I. More older individuals and African Americans with MS filed claims during Phase III than during Phases I and II. In Phase I, adults with MS were more likely to allege discrimination against smaller employers and less likely to file charges against larger employers, a trend that reversed during Phases II and III. The annual number of resolved EEOC charges appeared to increase during Phase I, increase then decrease in Phase II, and increase during Phase III. Regardless of phase, most allegations pertained to either unlawful discharge or failure to provide reasonable accommodations. Although higher in Phase III than in I, the percentage of EEOC merit decisions was highest in Phase II. CONCLUSION: Over time, more typically disenfranchised individuals sought ADA protections, possibly due to publicity, support from advocates, and membership in a culture supporting diversity and nondiscrimination. The increased number of resolved allegations in Phase III was consistent with the greater inclusiveness attributed to the ADA Amendments Act. Interpretation of other findings is provided regarding characteristics of respondents, types of allegations, and trends in EEOC merit decisions.

ADA Perceived Disability Claims: A Decision-Tree Analysis

The purpose of this study is to examine the possible interactions of predictor variables pertaining to perceived disability claims contained in a large governmental database. Specifically, it is a retrospective analysis of US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) data for the entire population of workplace discrimination claims based on the "regarded as disabled" prong of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) definition of disability. The study utilized records extracted from a "master database" of over two million charges of workplace discrimination in the Integrated Mission System of the EEOC. This database includes all ADA-related discrimination allegations filed from July 26, 1992 through December 31, 2008. Chi squared automatic interaction detection (CHAID) was employed to analyze interaction effects of relevant variables, such as issue (grievance) and industry type. The research question addressed by CHAID is: What combination of factors are associated with merit outcomes for people making ADA EEOC allegations who are "regarded as" having disabilities? The CHAID analysis shows how merit outcome is predicted by the interaction of relevant variables. Issue was found to be the most prominent variable in determining merit outcome, followed by industry type, but the picture is made more complex by qualifications regarding age and race data. Although discharge was the most frequent grievance among charging parties in the perceived disability group, its merit outcome was significantly less than that for the leading factor of hiring.

Autism spectrum disorders and intellectual disabilities: A comparison of ADA Title I workplace discrimination allegations

Using the Integrated Mission System (IMS) of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for allegations of discrimination involving Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), allegations made by individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) and by individuals with intellectual disabilities (IDs) are compared and contrasted. Key dimensions of workplace discrimination examined include: demographic characteristics of the charging parties; the industry designation, location and size of employers against whom allegations were filed; the nature of workplace discrimination alleged to have occurred; and the EEOC outcome/resolution of these allegations. The characteristics of ASD allegations are then compared and contrasted with those of ID allegations. The findings of this study imply that typical ASD and ID allegations are characteristically quite similar to each other. Differences that were found between the two groups of allegations indicate that charging parties with ASD are more likely to be a bit younger than those with ID, and are more likely to be male. Additionally, ASD allegations of discrimination were more likely than ID to have been made against Information, Educational Services, and Arts/Entertainment/Recreation industry employers.

Workplace discrimination and the record of disability

This article documents the employment discrimination experienced by Americans with a record of but no current disability, utilizing the Integrated Mission System of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Decisions by the EEOC in favor of charging parties with historical disabilities disproportionately exceeded those in favor of charging parties with current disabilities. This finding suggests that discrimination against persons who have only a record of persists in the workplace, and that this additional aspect of the definition of the term disability is viable.

Workplace Discrimination and the Perception of Disability

This article documents the employment discrimination experienced by Americans “regarded as” disabled (but not medically verified as such), using the Integrated Mission System of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Claimants who were perceived as disabled, as contrasted with those with documented disabilities, were more likely to file charges of discrimination based on the issues of discharge or hiring. Decisions by the EEOC in favor of claimants perceived to have disabilities disproportionately exceeded those in favor of claimants with documented disabilities. This finding lends support to the assertion that unconscious/implicit bias is persistent in the workplace.

Age and Disability Employment Discrimination: Occupational Rehabilitation Implications

Introduction As concerns grow that a thinning labor force due to retirement will lead to worker shortages, it becomes critical to support positive employment outcomes of groups who have been underutilized, specifically older workers and workers with disabilities. Better understanding perceived age and disability discrimination and their intersection can help rehabilitation specialists and employers address challenges expected as a result of the evolving workforce. Methods Using U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Integrated Mission System data, we investigate the nature of employment discrimination charges that cite the Americans with Disabilities Act or Age Discrimination in Employment Act individually or jointly. We focus on trends in joint filings over time and across categories of age, types of disabilities, and alleged discriminatory behavior. Results We find that employment discrimination claims that originate from older or disabled workers are concentrated within a subset of issues that include reasonable accommodation, retaliation, and termination. Age-related disabilities are more frequently referenced in joint cases than in the overall pool of ADA filings, while the psychiatric disorders are less often referenced in joint cases. When examining charges made by those protected under both the ADA and ADEA, results from a logit model indicate that in comparison to charges filed under the ADA alone, jointly-filed ADA/ADEA charges are more likely to be filed by older individuals, by those who perceive discrimination in hiring and termination, and to originate from within the smallest firms. Conclusion In light of these findings, rehabilitation and workplace practices to maximize the hiring and retention of older workers and those with disabilities are discussed.