The Disability Employment Puzzle: A Field Experiment on Employer Hiring Behavior

Abstract

People with disabilities have low employment and wage levels, and some studies suggest employer discrimination is a contributing factor. Following the method of Bertrand and Mullainathan (2003), new evidence is presented from a field experiment that sent applications in response to 6,016 advertised accounting positions from well-qualified fictional applicants, with one-third of cover letters disclosing that the applicant has a spinal cord injury, one-third disclosing the presence of Asperger's Syndrome, and one-third not mentioning disability. These specific disabilities were chosen because they would not be expected to limit productivity in accounting, helping rule out productivity-based explanations for any differences in employer responses. Half of the resumes portrayed a novice accountant, and half portrayed an experienced one. The fictional applicants with disabilities received 26% fewer expressions of employer interest than those without disabilities, with little difference between the two types of disability. The disability gap was concentrated among more experienced applicants, and among private companies with fewer than 15 employees that are not covered by the ADA, although comparable state statutes cover about half of them. Comparisons above and below disability law coverage thresholds point to a possible positive effect of the ADA on employer responses to applicants with disabilities, but no clear effects of state laws. The overall pattern of findings is consistent with the idea that disability discrimination continues to impede employment prospects of people with disabilities, and more attention needs to be paid to employer behavior and the demand side of the labor market for people with disabilities.

Physical Disability and Labor Market Discrimination: Evidence From a Field Experiment

“…Our data also suggest that disabled individuals may face more severe discrimination than what has been previously reported (i.e. Ravaud et al, 1992;Ameri et al, 2017;Baert, 2016).…”

“…We find that callback rates range between 11.6% and 17.4% across the target positions, with a sample average callback rate of 14.4%. These baseline rates are among the highest among those reported in related papers using fictitious applications to measure racial discrimination (see for example Bertrand andMullainathan, 2004 andOreopoulos, 2011) and discrimination towards persons with disabilities (Ravaud et al, 1992;Ameri et al, 2017), notwithstanding our conservative definition of callback. 6 Several factors may explain why our baseline callback rates are 6 If we extend our definition of callback to include any attempt from the employer to contact the candidate (unless the message is negative) on top of those seeking a formal interview, we obtain callback rates largely higher than all papers cited above.…”

“…Their results support the hypothesis that persons with disability are discriminated against. The closest study to our paper in terms of methodology is Ameri et al (2017) who measure disability related discrimination by sending 6016 applications in the United States. They focus on highly educated males applying for skilled accounting positions.…”

Workshop on AI fairness for people with disabilities

“…People with disabilities do experience discrimination and exclusion in everyday life. In one recent field study, disclosing a disability (spinal cord injury or Asperger's Syndrome) in a job application cover letter resulted in 26% fewer positive responses from employers, even though the disability was not likely to affect productivity for the position (Ameri et al, 2018). Another study found that the pay gap between people with and without disability cannot be explained by productivity differences, and likely represents discrimination (Kruse, Schur, Rogers, & Ameri, 2017).…”

All in my Head? The Play of Exclusion and Discrimination in the Labor Market

“…Fictional CVs and cover letters are sent to employers and by comparing the callback rates for different groups, the researcher can estimate the degree of discrimination (Booth et al, 2012). The spate of studies that followed have focused mainly on race and gender as the axes of discrimination, but there are increasing number of studies being conducted to test for discrimination based on ethnicity, immigrant or disability status and other axes (e.g., Bertrand and Mullainathan, 2003;Booth et al, 2012;Goldberg et al, 1996;Ameri et al, 2015). These studies do not attempt to provide any generalized picture of discrimination but have been instrumental in the widespread acceptance that discrimination exists.…”