Perceptions and Bias of Small Business Leaders in Employing People with Different Types of Disabilities.

PURPOSE: Despite existing employment-related legislation and governmental programs, people with disabilities continue to face significant barriers to competitive employment. These obstacles are partially due to biases among employers regarding the contributions of people with disabilities and perceptions about accommodation costs, which can affect their hiring decisions. Existing research on employment barriers and facilitators often treats people with disabilities homogenously and focuses mainly on large companies. This study helps to fill these gaps by exploring the motivations and challenges small employers face when hiring people with disabilities and how their attitudes and willingness to hire vary based on disability type. METHODS: We surveyed business owners and decision-makers at companies with fewer than 100 employees resulting in a sample of 393 company respondents. Through descriptive analyses, we examined variations in respondents' willingness to hire and the prevailing attitudes among the company leaders sampled. We explored how employer attitudes can either hinder or support the hiring of people with disabilities. We conducted multivariate analysis to explore the connections among attitudinal barriers, facilitators, and willingness to hire individuals with various disabilities, reflecting disability's heterogeneous nature. RESULTS: Our findings reveal that, in terms of hiring people with disabilities, the most important concerns among employers are: inability to discipline, being unfamiliar with how to hire and accommodate, and uncertainty over accommodation costs. These concerns do not differ between employers covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and non-covered employers. However, ADA-coverage may make a difference as ADA-covered employers are more likely to say they would hire an applicant with a disability. We find that for small companies (less than 15 employees), the positive effect of the facilitators (positive perceptions about workers with disabilities) almost completely offsets the negative effect of the barriers. However, for the larger companies, the marginal effect for an additional barrier is significantly more predictive than for an additional facilitator. Among the disabilities we examined, employers are least likely to hire someone with blindness, followed by mental health disabilities, intellectual disabilities, deafness, and physical disabilities, underscoring that employers do not view all types of disabilities as equally desirable at work. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding small employers' underlying concerns and effectively addressing those factors is crucial for developing effective intervention strategies to encourage small employers to hire and retain people with different disabilities. Our results suggest greater openness among ADA-covered employers to hiring people with disabilities, but the perceived barriers indicate a need for ongoing information on effective intervention strategies to increase disability hiring among all small employers.

Disability Inclusion in Corporate Supplier Diversity Initiatives.

PURPOSE: Since the 1960s, federal and state governments and private-sector companies have used supplier diversity initiatives to ensure their supply chains include businesses owned by traditionally economically disadvantaged or underrepresented groups. Originally concentrated on racial and ethnic minority groups, programs have expanded to include businesses owned by women, veterans, LGBTQ+ individuals, and, in some cases, people with disabilities. This study investigates the extent to which disability is included in supplier diversity initiatives of Fortune 500 companies. METHODS: This paper uses a novel data set created by the authors with information on supplier diversity initiatives and Disability, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) statements in Fortune 500 companies extracted from public sources. This information is combined with data from Compustat, a corporate financial database published by Standard and Poor's and additional variables from other sources. RESULTS: 75% of the Fortune 500 companies have supplier diversity programs that express a commitment to diversity yet only 49% of those with such programs include disability-owned businesses (38% of all Fortune 500 companies). Among the largest 100 companies, 89% had supplier diversity programs that included disability, almost 6 times the rate Ball et al. reported in 2005. This study finds disability inclusion varies significantly by company size, industry, and whether the company is a government contractor. CONCLUSION: Despite the growth in disability inclusion, the absence of disability as a diversity category in regulations mandating supplier diversity initiatives for government contractors impacts disability inclusion. If we want to align our supplier diversity programs with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the first step is to address the issue in the Small Business Administration and federal contracting requirements.

Who Requests and Receives Workplace Accommodations? An Intersectional Analysis.

PURPOSE: This study investigates who requests workplace accommodations and who is more likely to have requests granted. We investigate the role of demographic characteristics and their intersection, including disability, gender, race/ethnicity, and age. We also consider the role of other personal and job-related factors. METHODS: We use the data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) 2021 Disability Supplement to estimate the odds ratio of having requested workplace accommodations and having such request granted during the COVID-19 pandemic when the survey was conducted. In supplementary analyses, we explore the relationship between remote work and flexible scheduling and workplace accommodations, as well as possible trends using CPS 2019 Disability Supplement. RESULTS: Our results indicate that Hispanics with disabilities are more likely than others to request workplace accommodations, but they are substantially less likely to be granted accommodations. Consistent with other studies, our paper also finds that people with disabilities, women, and older people are more likely to request accommodations than their respective counterparts. Other personal and job-related factors such as higher education, parenthood, being single, being a citizen, and working in management-related occupations are associated with higher likelihood of requesting workplace accommodations compared to their counterparts, while receiving accommodations is largely explained by occupational differences. CONCLUSION: Our findings show that there are still disparities in the rates of workplace accommodation requests and provision for multiply marginalized groups, and as such, taking into account intersectional differences in addition and in relation to disability is important.

The Americans with Disabilities Act and Equal Access to Public Spaces.

Since the passage of the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the United States federal government, states, and localities have passed laws and created policies intended to ensure that people with disabilities had full and equal access to public spaces. Nevertheless, more than three decades after the ADA, people with disabilities continue to face architectural and other barriers to community inclusion and participation. This article describes laws, policies, and initiatives that are implemented in the United States at the federal, state, and local levels to address these barriers, examines their effectiveness, and describes the views of advocates working in furtherance of the rights of people with disabilities and the inclusiveness of public spaces. We conclude by providing brief recommendations for ways federal, state, and local governments may ensure people with disabilities have full and equal access to public spaces.

Pre- and Post-COVID-19 Outcomes for Israelis With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities in the Community.

This study is among the first pre-post examinations to explore differences in subjective well-being, adaptive and maladaptive behavior, close relationships, community integration, family members' satisfaction with residential and community living settings, and family contact before and after the COVID-19 outbreak. Participants demonstrated better life satisfaction and adaptive behavior before COVID-19 than after COVID-19. Participants reported closer relationships with family members and peers before COVID-19 and closer relationships with staff members after COVID-19. The findings reveal mixed, although mostly negative, effects of the pandemic on people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the community in Israel, in accord with extant comparative research.

Disability, workplace inclusion and organizational citizenship behavior: an exploratory study of the legal profession.

Purpose ­: Many workers with disabilities face cultures of exclusion in the workplace, which can affect their participation in decisions, workplace engagement, job attitudes and performance. The authors explore a key indicator of engagement-perceptions of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)-as it relates to disability and other marginalized identities in the workplace. Design/methodology/approach ­: Using an online survey, legal professionals answered questions about their workplace experiences. Ordinary least squares (OLS) multivariate regression analysis with progressive adjustment was used to investigate the effect of demographic and organizational factors on perceptions of OCB. Findings ­: The authors find that employees with disabilities have lower perceptions of OCB, both before and after controlling for other personal and job variables. The disability gap is cut nearly in half, however, when controlling for workplace culture measures of co-worker support and the presence of an effective diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policy. Disability does not appear to interact with gender, race/ethnicity and LGBTQ + status in affecting perceptions of OCB. Originality/value ­: The results point to the workplace barriers faced by people with disabilities that affect their perceptions of engagement, and the potential for supportive cultures to change these perceptions.

Workplace health surveillance and COVID-19: algorithmic health discrimination and cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: This article examines ways COVID-19 health surveillance and algorithmic decision-making ("ADM") are creating and exacerbating workplace inequalities that impact post-treatment cancer survivors. Cancer survivors' ability to exercise their right to work often is limited by prejudice and health concerns. While cancer survivors can ostensibly elect not to disclose to their employers when they are receiving treatments or if they have a history of treatment, the use of ADM increases the chances that employers will learn of their situation regardless of their preferences. Moreover, absent significant change, inequalities may persist or even expand. METHODS: We analyze how COVID-19 health surveillance is creating an unprecedented amount of health data on all people. These data are increasingly collected and used by employers as part of COVID-19 regulatory interventions. RESULTS: The increase in data, combined with the health and economic crisis, means algorithm-driven health inequalities will be experienced by a larger percentage of the population. Post-treatment cancer survivors, as for people with disabilities generally, are at greater risk of experiencing negative outcomes from algorithmic health discrimination. CONCLUSIONS: Updated and revised workplace policy and practice requirements, as well as collaboration across impacted groups, are critical in helping to control the inequalities that flow from the interaction between COVID-19, ADM, and the experience of cancer survivorship in the workplace. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The interaction among COVID-19, health surveillance, and ADM increases exposure to algorithmic health discrimination in the workplace.

Disability-inclusive employment, cancer survivorship, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

PURPOSE: This special section of the Journal of Cancer Survivorship examines disability-inclusive employment policy and practice, cancer survivorship, and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") of 1990. It considers current issues in research, policy, practice, and law in the United States, including new questions arising in light of COVID-19, such as the nature of disability disclosure, workplace accommodations and remote work, emerging workplace health surveillance technologies, and inclusive employment practices for cancer survivors. It also presents, for comparative purposes, a current analysis of cancer-related disability discrimination in the media in the United States and Israel. METHODS: After the "Introduction," this special section presents two studies on disclosure of disability in employment: the first addressing disclosure during a job interview of the need for accommodations, and the second addressing disclosure as related to individual and organizational characteristics. The next two articles examine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the work experience: first, for people with disabilities working remotely, with implications for cancer survivors, and second, for cancer survivors and people with disabilities facing potential algorithmic health discrimination due to workplace health surveillance. The final article considers cancer-related stigma and discrimination, as faced in the United States and Israel (using a comparison of mass media). RESULTS: Disability-inclusive employment laws such as the ADA promote two central requirements: First, social institutions affirmatively remove attitudinal and structural barriers and discrimination confronting people with disabilities as they exercise their rights to participate fully in society. Second, employers, governmental entities, and public accommodations comply with the "accommodation principle," which requires them to make reasonable adjustments to job tasks, places of work, and public places in society, to enable equal participation by qualified individuals with disabilities. The articles in this special section consider these principles in innovative ways from a disability-inclusive paradigm. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for a robust research literature on disability-inclusive employment policy and practice for people with disabilities and for cancer survivors. This special section offers five articles as a start. The section's "Introduction" also highlights recent ADA case law and introduces two new national Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers, one on Disability Inclusive Employment Policy ("DIEP RRTC") and one on Employer Practices Leading to Successful Employment Outcomes Among People with Disabilities ("Employer Practices RRTC"), both designed to help fill this need. The centers are currently examining ways organizations, including those in the gig economy, can facilitate inclusive employment of people with disabilities. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: As highlighted in the Introduction's discussion of recent ADA cases involving cancer-related employment discrimination, as well as in the special section's articles, discrimination in employment persists and, indeed, is worsening for cancer survivors and those with disabilities. This discrimination affects people across the demographic spectrum, and it can be especially harmful to people in groups not always acknowledged, such as individuals with multiple, intersectional minority identities associated with race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity, as well as people at different stages of the life course. Furthermore, the impact of discrimination in employment is often exacerbated by life experiences such as unemployment and underemployment, financial insecurity, ableism, racism, and sexism.

Diversity and inclusion in the legal profession: disclosure of cancer and other health conditions by lawyers with disabilities and lawyers who identify as LGBTQ + .

PURPOSE: Given the training and experience of lawyers, we assumed that a study of lawyers' willingness to disclose disability in the workplace would provide an example of the actions of a group knowledgeable about disability law. The current study accounts for the effect of visibility of disability, onset and type of disability, and whether the lawyer has made an accommodation request. We also investigate the role of other individual characteristics, such as sexual orientation, gender identity, race/ethnicity, age, and job-related characteristics, in willingness to disclose. METHODS: We use data from the first phase of a longitudinal national survey of lawyers in the USA to estimate the odds of disclosing disability to co-workers, management, and clients using proportional odds models. RESULTS: Lawyers with less visible disabilities, those with mental health disabilities, and those who work for smaller organizations have lower odds of disclosing to co-workers, management, and clients as compared to their counterparts. Attorneys who have requested accommodations are more willing to disclose as compared to those who have not, but only to co-workers and management. Women are less likely than men to disclose to management and clients. However, gender is not a significant determinant of disclosure to co-workers. Older attorneys are more likely to disclose to clients, whereas attorneys with children are less likely to disclose to co-workers. Lastly, lower perceived prejudice and the presence of co-workers with disabilities are associated with higher disclosure scores, but not for all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals who acquired a disability at a relatively early point in life and those with more visible disabilities are more likely to disclose. However, such willingness is affected by the intersection of disability with other individual and firm-level characteristics. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The findings imply that those with less visible disabilities and with health conditions acquired later in life are less likely to disclose. The relevance of the findings is heightened by the altered work conditions and demands imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic for cancer survivors.

Diversity and Inclusion in the American Legal Profession: Discrimination and Bias Reported by Lawyers with Disabilities and Lawyers Who Identify as LGBTQ.

PURPOSE: This article is part of an ongoing body of investigation examining the experiences of lawyers with diverse and multiple minority identities, with particular focus on lawyers with disabilities; lawyers who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer ("LGBTQ+" as an overarching term); and lawyers with minority identities associated with race and ethnicity, gender, and age. The focus of this article is on discrimination and bias in their workplaces as reported by the lawyers experiencing it. METHODS: We employ survey data from the first phase of this investigation, gathered from the survey responses of 3590 lawyers located across all states in the United States and working in most types and sizes of legal venues. The data were collected between 2018 and 2019, before the 2020 pandemic. We estimate differences across three categories of discrimination reported-subtle-only discrimination, overt-only discrimination, and both subtle and overt discrimination. We estimate the nature and magnitude of associations among individual and organizational variables, and we use multinomial logistic regression to illustrate relative risks of reports of discrimination for intersecting identities. RESULTS: As compared to non-disabled lawyers, lawyers with disabilities show a higher likelihood of reporting both subtle and overt discrimination versus no discrimination. Similarly, lawyers who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer ("LGBQ") show a higher likelihood of reporting both subtle and overtdiscrimination, and subtle-only discrimination, as compared to lawyers who identify as straight/heterosexual. Women lawyers and lawyers of color are more likely to report all three types of discrimination. In general, younger lawyers are more likely to report subtle-only discrimination when compared to older lawyers. Lawyers working at a private firm are less likely to report all types of discrimination, while working for a larger organization is associated with a higher relative risk of reporting subtle-only discrimination versus no discrimination. CONCLUSIONS: The current study represents a next, incremental step for better understanding non-monochromatic and intersectional aspects of individual identity in the legal profession. The findings illustrate that primary individual and multiple minority identities, as identified by disability, sexual orientation, gender, race/ethnicity, and age, are associated with reports of discrimination and bias in the legal workplace.

Before the Accommodation Principle: Disability and Employment Among Union Army Veterans.

Purpose This article examines the impact on veteran employment of the U.S. government's pension benefit provisions for Union soldiers following the Civil War. Methods To do so, it draws on both Union army pension records and U.S. census returns as well as information derived from the Union army samples designed by the Center for Population Economics at the University of Chicago ("CPE") and census samples from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series ("IPUMS"). Results We find that, although twentieth-century Progressive reformers contended otherwise, these nineteenth-century Americans wanted what their twenty-first-century counterparts want-work at a meaningful occupation. Conclusions Our findings evidence the complex and contradictory impact on occupational rehabilitation and employment resulting from the public-private partnerships established for Union army veterans. These partnerships were based on substantially different notions of disability needs and rights than those underlying the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and its central accommodation principle.

Diversity and Inclusion in the American Legal Profession: Workplace Accommodations for Lawyers with Disabilities and Lawyers Who Identify as LGBTQ.

PURPOSE: Workplace accommodations, vital for employees with disabilities, promote diversity and inclusion efforts in organizations. This article examines who requests accommodations and who is more likely to have requests granted. We investigate the roles of individual characteristics and their intersection, including disability, sexual orientation, gender, race/ethnicity, and age. METHODS: Using data from a national survey of U.S. lawyers, we estimate the odds of requesting accommodations and having the requests approved. We also estimate differences in odds according to individual characteristics, adjusting for control variables. RESULTS: Personal identity factors, such as disability status, gender, and age, predict requests for accommodations. Odds of requesting accommodations were higher for women and people with disabilities as compared to men and those without disabilities, but lower for older individuals. Odds of requesting accommodations were higher for an older population segment-older lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (LGBQ) lawyers-than for younger lawyers. Accommodations were granted differentially to individuals with multiple marginalized identities. Counter to predictions, being a person with a disability is negatively associated with having an accommodation granted. Older lawyers generally have higher odds of having accommodations granted, but odds for groups such as women and racial/ethnic minorities decline with age. LGBQ lawyers who are racial minorities have lower odds than White LGBQ lawyers of having their accommodations granted. Longer tenure increases the odds of requesting accommodations. Working for a private organization decreases the odds; working for a large organization generally increases the odds. CONCLUSIONS: Those most needing accommodations, such as lawyers with disabilities and women, are more likely to request accommodations. Disabled lawyers, older women lawyers, older racial/ethnic minority lawyers, and LGBQ minority lawyers have relatively low odds of having requests granted. The results highlight the need to consider intersectional identities in the accommodation process.

Gig Workers with Disabilities: Opportunities, Challenges, and Regulatory Response.

Purpose This article examines gig work-typified by technologically-based, on-demand, independent contractor arrangements-for people with disabilities. Methods To do so, it draws upon prior and current research to describe the nature of gig work for people with disabilities, as well as the challenges and new prospects that such work presents. It also discusses recent regulatory reforms and proposes improvements, particularly in light of the current pandemic. Results Participation in the traditional employment market for people with disabilities who can and wish to work remains limited, even when workplace accommodations and individualized adjustments are possible. Increasingly, though, self-directed or independently contracted work is a way for people with disabilities to participate in the mainstream economy. The "gig economy," in particular, has provided additional opportunities for self-directed work, although the novel coronavirus pandemic has required existing approaches to be reconceived. Conclusions The gig economy provides new prospects, as well as challenges, for people with disabilities to engage in meaningful work. It also requires innovative regulatory responses to the gig work relationship, especially during the pandemic era.

Supported Decision Making in Serious Mental Illness.

OBJECTIVE: Making decisions is central to the exercise of control over one's well-being. Many individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) experience limitations in their decision-making capacity. These individuals have often been placed under legal guardianship and substitute decision makers have been appointed to make decisions on their behalf. More recently, supported decision making (SDM) has emerged as a possible alternative in some cases. SDM involves recruitment of trusted supports to enhance an individual's capacity in the decision-making process, enabling him or her to retain autonomy in life decisions. This overview examines issues associated with decision-making capacity in SMI, frameworks of substitute decision making and SDM, and emerging empirical research on SDM. METHOD: This is an overview of the medical and legal literature on decision making capacity and supported decision making for persons with SMI. RESULTS: Many but not all individuals with SMI exhibit decrements in decision-making capacity and skill, in part due to cognitive impairment. There are no published data on rates of substitute decision making/guardianship or SDM for SMI. Only three empirical studies have explored SDM in this population. These studies suggest that SDM is viewed as an acceptable and potentially superior alternative to substitute decision making for patients and their caretakers. CONCLUSIONS: SDM is a promising alternative to substitute decision making for persons with SMI. Further empirical research is needed to clarify candidates for SDM, decisions in need of support, selection of supporters, guidelines for the SDM process, integration of SDM with emerging technological platforms, and outcomes of SDM. Recommendations for implementation of and research on SDM for SMI are provided.

Future Directions in Employment, Occupational Rehabilitation, and Disability: Introduction to the Special Section.

Purpose From an array of disciplinary perspectives, the articles in this special section examine opportunities and challenges in the economic, social, and civic participation of individuals across the spectrum of disabilities. Methods At multiple levels of analysis, the contributors consider employment law and policy frameworks, occupational and vocational rehabilitation strategies, and corporate practices in support of the full and equal inclusion of people with disabilities in society. Results and Conclusions The implications for policymakers, public and private sector stakeholders, and occupational rehabilitation professional are presented to help inform future policies, practices, and strategies to improve employment outcomes for people with disabilities.

Socially Constructed Hierarchies of Impairments: The Case of Australian and Irish Workers' Access to Compensation for Injuries.

OBJECTIVES: Socially constructed hierarchies of impairment complicate the general disadvantage experienced by workers with disabilities. Workers with a range of abilities categorized as a "disability" are likely to experience less favourable treatment at work and have their rights to work discounted by laws and institutions, as compared to workers without disabilities. Value judgments in workplace culture and local law mean that the extent of disadvantage experienced by workers with disabilities additionally will depend upon the type of impairment they have. Rather than focusing upon the extent and severity of the impairment and how society turns an impairment into a recognized disability, this article aims to critically analyse the social hierarchy of physical versus mental impairment. METHODS: Using legal doctrinal research methods, this paper analysis how Australian and Irish workers' compensation and negligence laws regard workers with mental injuries and impairments as less deserving of compensation and protection than like workers who have physical and sensory injuries or impairments. RESULTS: This research finds that workers who acquire and manifest mental injuries and impairments at work are less able to obtain compensation and protection than workers who have developed physical and sensory injuries of equal or lesser severity. Organizational cultures and governmental laws and policies that treat workers less favourably because they have mental injuries and impairments perpetuates unfair and artificial hierarchies of disability attributes. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that these "sanist" attitudes undermine equal access to compensation for workplace injury as prohibited by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Disability at Work: A Look Back and Forward.

Purpose This article presents new evidence on employment barriers and workplace disparities facing employees with disabilities, linking the disparities to employee attitudes. Methods Analyses use the 2006 General Social Survey to connect disability to workplace disparities and attitudes in a structural equation model. Results Compared to employees without disabilities, those with disabilities report: lower pay levels, job security, and flexibility; more negative treatment by management; and, lower job satisfaction but similar organizational commitment and turnover intention. The lower satisfaction is mediated by lower job security, less job flexibility, and more negative views of management and co-worker relations. Conclusion Prior research and the present findings show that people with disabilities experience employment disparities that limit their income, security, and overall quality of work life. Technology plays an increasingly important role in decreasing employment disparities. However, there also should be increased targeted efforts by government, employers, insurers, occupational rehabilitation providers, and disability groups to address workplace barriers faced by employees with disabilities, and by those with disabilities seeking to return to work.