Reasonable accommodation, a provision of the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act, directs employers to alter the workplace so that qualified workers with disabilities have equal employment opportunity. Data on employees' requests for and employers' responses to reasonable accommodation, reported by people with disabilities, demonstrate that employers are reluctant to modify the social structure of work because of their perceived need to contain the costs of reform and maintain control of the work process. Employers often discourage employees with disabilities from making requests for accommodation, and they deny one of every three requests. The authors show how organizations devalue the work of people with disabilities, and identify an array of resistance strategies employers use to preserve hierarchy and authority in organizations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abberley, P.
(1987). The concept of oppression and the development of a social theory of disability. Disability, Handicap & Society, 2, 5-19.
2.
Acker, J.
(1989). Doing comparable worth: Gender, class, and pay equity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
3.
Acker, J.
(1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4, 139-158.
4.
Acker, J.
(1992). Gendering organizational theory. In A. J. Mills & P. Trancred (Eds.), Gendering organizational analysis (pp. 248-260). London: Sage.
5.
Albrecht, G. L.
(1992). The disability business: Rehabilitation in America. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6.
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.
7.
Anderson, C. D.
, & Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (1995). Patriarchal pressures: An exploration of organizational processes that exacerbate and erode gender earnings inequality. Work and Occupations, 22, 328-356.
8.
Becker, H. S.
(1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press.
9.
Berkeley Planning Associates
. (1982). A study of accommodations provided to handicapped employees by federal contractors. Volumes I and II. Prepared for U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Washington, DC.
10.
Blackwell-Stratton, M.
, Breslin, M. L., Mayerson, A. B., & Bailey, S. (1988). Smashing icons: Disabled women and the disability and women's movements. In M. Fine & A. Asch (Eds.), Women with disabilities: Essays in psychology, culture, and politics (pp. 306-332). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
11.
Blanck, P. D.
(1996). Communicating the Americans with Disabilities Act, transcending compliance: 1996 follow-up report on Sears, Roebuck and Co.Iowa City, Iowa.
12.
Bolstein v. Reich, 1995 WL 46387 (D.D.C. 1995).
13.
Bridges, W. P.
, & Nelson, R. L. (1989). Markets in hierarchies: Organizational and market influences on gender inequality in a state pay system. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 616-658.
14.
Carrozza v. Howard County, 45 F. 3d 425 (4th Cir., 1995).
15.
Cockburn, C.
(1991). In the way of women: Men's resistance to sex equality in organizations. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
16.
Deegan, M. J.
(1985). Multiple minority groups: A case study of physically disabled women. In M. J. Deegan & N. A. Brooks (Eds.), Women and disability: The double handicap (pp. 36-55). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
17.
Diesing, P.
(1971). Patterns of discovery in the social sciences. Chicago: Aldine.
18.
Edwards, R.
(1979). Contested terrain. New York: Basic.
19.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
. (1992). A technical assistance manual on the employment provisions (Title I) of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Washington, DC.
20.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
. (1996). Cumulative ADA charge data for July 26, 1992-June 30, 1996 reporting period. Washington, DC.
21.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
. (1997). EEOC enforcement guidance on the Americans with Disabilities Act and psychiatric disabilities. Washington, DC.
22.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ)
. (1991). Americans with Disabilities Act handbook. Washington, DC.
23.
Essed, P.
(1991). Understanding everyday racism: An interdisciplinary theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24.
Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, U.S. Department of Labor
. (1995). Good for business: Making full use of the nation's human capital. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
25.
Freidson, E.
(1965). Disability as deviance. In M. B. Sussman (Ed.), Sociology and rehabilitation (pp. 71-99). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
26.
Freidson, E.
(1970). Profession of medicine. New York: Harper & Row.
27.
Gherardi, S.
(1995). Gender, symbolism and organizational cultures. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28.
Gill, T. S.
, & McConnaughey, J. R. (1995, April 3). The Americans with Disabilities Act: An overview. Paper presented by Saperson & Day attorneys at a professional development seminar sponsored by the BusinessCouncil of New York State, Inc., Albany, NY.
29.
Glaser, B. C.
, & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
30.
Granger, B.
, & Baron, R. C. (1996, June 13-16). A national study on job accommodations for people with psychiatric disabilities. Paper presented at the ninth annual meeting of the Society for Disability Studies, Washington, DC.
31.
Hahn, H.
(1987). Advertising the acceptably employable image: Disability and capitalism. Policy Studies Journal, 15, 551-570.
32.
Hahn, H.
(1988). The politics of physical differences: Disability and discrimination. Journal of Social Issues, 44, 39-47.
33.
Hahn, H.
(1991). Alternative views of empowerment: social services and civil rights. Journal of Rehabilitation, October-December, 17-19.
34.
Harlan, S. L.
, & Robert, P. M. (1995). Disability in work organizations: Barriers to employment opportunity. Albany, NY: State University of New York at Albany.
35.
Harris, Louis
, & Associates, Inc. (1986). The ICD survey of disabled Americans, bringing disabled Americans into the mainstream. New York: Louis Harris and Associates, Inc.
36.
Harris, Louis
, & Associates, Inc., and National Organization on Disability. (1995). 1995 survey of corporate executives of the ADA. Washington, DC: Louis Harris and Associates, Inc.
37.
Imrie, R.
(1996). Disability and the city: International perspectives. New York: St. Martin's.
38.
Kanter, R. M.
(1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic.
39.
McFarlin, D. B.
, Song, J., & Sonntag, M. (1991). Integrating the disabled into the work force: A survey of Fortune 500 company attitudes and practices. Employee Responsibility and Rights Journal, 4, 107-123.
40.
Mills, A. J.
(1996). Organizational culture. In P. Dubeck & K. Borman (Eds.), Women and work: A handbook (pp. 321-323). New York: Garland.
41.
Mills, A. J.
, & P. Tancred (Eds). (1992). Gendering organizational analysis. London: Sage.
42.
Morgan, G.
(1986). Images of organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
43.
Murphy, R. F.
, Scheer, J., Murphy, Y., & Mack, R. (1988). Physical disability and social liminality: A study in the rituals of adversity. Social Science and Medicine, 26, 235-242.
44.
National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research
. (1997). The research exchange, (Vol.2, no. 4). Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
45.
Nkomo, S.
(1992). The emperor has no clothes: Rewriting “race in organizations.”Academy of Management Review, 17, 487-513.
46.
Oliver, M.
(1990). The politics of disablement. London: Macmillan.
47.
The President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities
. (1994). Job Accommodation Network (JAN) reports (October-December). Washington, DC.
48.
Ragin, C.
(1987). The comparative method. Los Angeles: University of California, Berkeley.
49.
Schmidt v. Safeway, Inc., 864 F. Supp. 991 (D. Or. 1994).
50.
Seidel, J.
(1988). The ethnograph manual (version 3.0). Amherst, MA: Qualis Research Associates.
51.
Steinberg, R.
, & Haignere, L. (1987). Equitable compensation: Methodological criteria for comparable worth. In C. Bose & G. Spitze (Eds.), Ingredients for Women's Employment Policy (pp. 157-182). Albany: State University of New York Press.
52.
Stone, D. A.
(1984). The disabled state. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
53.
Stover, D. L.
(1996). The stratification of women within organizations. In P. Dubeck & K. Borman (Eds.), Women and work: A handbook (pp. 317-321). New York: Garland.
54.
Strauss, A.
, & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
55.
Strauss, A.
, & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. In N. K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
56.
Taylor, S. J.
, & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
57.
United States Commission on Civil Rights
. (1983). Accommodating the spectrum of individual abilities (Clearinghouse publication 81). Washington, DC.
58.
Vande Zande v. Wisconsin Department of Administration, 44 F.3rd 538, (7th Cir., 1995).
59.
Wendell, S.
(1989). Toward a feminist theory of disability. Hypatia, 4, 10-124.
60.
Weston, K.
(1990). Production as means, production as metaphor: Women's struggle to enter the trades. In F. Ginsburg & A. Lowenhaupt Tsing (Eds.), Uncertain Terms: Negotiating gender in American culture (pp. 137-151). Boston: Beacon.
61.
Zuboff, S.
(1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power. New York: Basic.
