A Comparison of EEOC Closures Involving Hiring Versus Other Prevalent Discrimination Issues Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

Abstract

Hiring is not an unusual discrimination issue in that the overwhelming majority of allegations are still closed in favor of the Employer. However, it is counterintuitive that hiring has a higher merit resolution rate than other prevalent issues. This finding contradicts the assumption that hiring is an "invisible process." Considering that the EEOC makes merit determinations at a competitive rate, it is clear that hiring is sufficiently transparent.

The Importance of Anti-Discrimination and Workers' Compensation Laws on the Provision of Workplace Accommodations following the Onset of a Disability

“…Some policymakers have argued that the courts did not properly interpret Congressional intent and hence have diluted the intended power of the law to reduce discrimination. For instance, most ADA reasonable accommodation charges are closed as a non-merit resolution, either because the charge lacks sufficient evidence of a violation of the ADA or because it does not meet other technical requirements (McMahon et al 2008). From 1993 to 2009, the EEOC received an average of approximately 17,000 charges of discrimination under the ADA each year, more than 75% of which ended in non-merit resolutions (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 2010).…”

Workplace Discrimination and the Perception of Disability

“…Difficult economic times exacerbate the problem. In an analysis of hiring discrimination, McMahon et al (2008) opined that “small differences in proportion may have substantial impact. Each discriminatory event is [a] violation of civil rights with serious psychological, financial, career, and integrity consequences to all parties concerned” (p. 110).…”

Unequal treatment or uneven consequence

“…As mentioned, previous research by disability scholars on the impact of Title I of the ADA in reducing unemployment for people with disabilities is primarily quantitative in nature and focuses on the outcomes of litigation rather than the process of litigation. For example, see Bruyère et al, 2006;Colker, 2005;McMahon, Hurley, West, et al, 2008;Miller, 1998;Moss et al, 2005;Shaw et al, 2012. Very little research has been done on the process of litigation (Falk, 1994;Lens, 2003).…”

“…Second, qualitative research is useful if a researcher is examining a topic about which not much is known and the study is exploratory in nature (Patton, 2002). As mentioned, previous research by disability scholars on the impact of Title I of the ADA in reducing unemployment for people with disabilities is primarily quantitative in nature and focuses on outcomes rather than the process of litigation (see, for example, Bruyère, Erickson, & VanLooy, 2006;Colker, 2005;McMahon, Hurley, West, Chan, Roessler, & Rumrill , 2008;Miller, 1998;Moss, Ullman, Ranney, & Burris, 2005;Shaw, Chan, & McMahon, 2012). Very little research has been done on the process of litigation (Lens, 2003).…”

“…Previous research by disability scholars on the impact of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (hereinafter ADA) in reducing unemployment for people with disabilities is primarily quantitative in nature (see, for example, Bruyère, Erickson, & VanLooy, 2006;Colker, 2005;McMahon, Hurley, West, Chan, Roessler, & Rumrill, 2008;Miller, 1998;Moss, Ullman, Ranney, & Burris, 2005;Shaw, Chan, & McMahon, 2012). In addition, the focus of the research has been on the outcomes of litigation rather than on the process of litigation (Lens, 2003), leaving a gap in the disability literature about the possible extralegal influences on these outcomes and what happens to ADA cases as they make their way through the litigation process (Burris & Moss, 2000).…”