This article presents findings from analyses of nationwide data on employment discrimination charges filed under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). In conducting the analyses, emphasis was placed on understanding the extent to which the ADA charge process differentially affects individuals with psychiatric disabilities. We found that 16.3% of individuals whose charges were closed as of June 30, 1995, received benefits from filing charges; individuals with psychiatric disabilities were only somewhat less likely to experience benefits from filing charges than were individuals with nonpsychiatric disabilities; individuals with schizophrenia had a strikingly lower benefit rate than all other individuals with other types of psychiatric disorders; and there was considerable variation among individuals with different kinds of nonpsychiatric disabilities in benefit rates.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.§ 12101 (b). (1994).
2.
Auberger, M. (1994, November 7). Cited in L. Kaufman-Rosen & K. Springen, Who are the disabled?Newsweek, p. 80.
3.
Blumrosen, A. W. (1993). Modern law: The law transmission system and equal employment opportunity. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
4.
Blumrosen, A. W. (1994, July 26). Testimony to U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor. Oversight hearing on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Select Education and Civil Rights of the Committee on Education and Labor. 103rd Cong., 2nd Sess.
5.
Bovard, J. (1995, June 22). The disabilities act's parade of absurdities. Wall Street Journal, p. A18.
6.
Campbell, J. (1994). Unintended consequences in public policy: Persons with psychiatric disabilities and the Americans With Disabilities Act. Policy Studies Journal, 22 (1), 133–145.
7.
Campbell, J., & Kaufman, C. L. (1997). Equality and difference in the ADA: Unintended consequences for employment of people with mental health disabilities. In R. Bonnie & J. Monahan (Eds.), Mental disorder, work disability, and the law (pp. 221–239). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
8.
Estroff, S. E., Zimmer, C., Lachicotte, W. S., Benoit, J., & Patrick, D. L. (1997). "No other way to go": Pathways to disability income application among persons with severe persistent mental illness. In. R. Bonnie & J. Monahan (Eds.), Mental disorder, work disability, and the law (pp. 55–104). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9.
Goldman, H. H., Morrissey, J. T., Ridegly, M. S., Frank, R. G., Newman, S. J., & Kennedy, C. (1992, Fall). Lessons from the program on chronic mental illness. Health Affair, 51–68.
10.
Herr, S. S. (1993). The ADA in international and developmental disabilities perspectives. In L. O. Gostin & H. A. Beyer (Eds.), Implementing the Americans With Disabilities Act (pp. 229–249). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
11.
Mathews, J. (1993, December 6). Having doubts about disabilities act. Washington Post, p. A21.
12.
Mathews, J. (1995, April 16). Disabilities act failing to achieve workplace goals. Washington Post, p. A18.
13.
McMahon, B. T., Shaw, L. R., & Jaet, D. N. (1995). An empirical analysis: Employment and disability from an ADA litigation perspective. NARPPS Journal, 10 (1), 3–14.
14.
Moss, K. (1992). Implications of employment complaints filed by people with mental disabilities. Washington, DC: Mental Health Policy Resource Center.
15.
Moss, K. (1996a). Psychiatric disabilities and employment discrimination charges under the Americans With Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services.
16.
Moss, K. (1996b). Psychiatric disabilities, employment discrimination charges, and the ADA. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.
17.
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. (1992). Consensus Statement, 1 (3). Washington, DC: Author.
18.
National Organization on Disability/Louis Harris and Associates. (1995). N.O.D./Harris survey on employment of people with disabilities, 1995. New York: Author.
19.
Norton, E. H. (1990). Justice and efficiency in dispute systems. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 5, 2.
20.
Norton, E. H. (1992, April 28). Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Oversight hearing on activities of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): Hearing before the Subcommittee on Employment and Productivity of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. 102nd Cong., 2nd Sess.
21.
Parry, J. (Ed. and Primary Author). (1994). Mental disabilities and the Americans With Disabilities Act: A practitioner's guide to employment, insurance, treatment, public access, and housing. Washington, DC: American Bar Association's Commission on Mental and Physical Disability Law.
22.
Rose, D. L. (1994). Twenty-five years later: Where do we stand on equal employment opportunity in law enforcement? In P. Burstein (Ed.), Equal employment opportunity labor market discrimination and public policy (pp. 39–57). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
23.
Seymour, R. T. (1995, May 8). Civil Rights Act and EEOC News. Issue No. 19.
24.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1994). Psychiatric disabilities, employment, and the Americans With Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
25.
U.S. Department of Commerce. (1991). Statistical abstract of the United States 1991. Washington, DC: Author.
26.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1993, November). Charge Data System (CDS) Codes. Washington, DC: Author.
27.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1987). EEOC Birmingham office closed discrimination charges without full investigation. Washington, DC: Author.
28.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1988). EEOC and state agencies did not fully investigate discrimination charges. Washington, DC: Author.
29.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1989). ADP systems: EEOC's Charge Data System contains errors but system satisfies user. Washington, DC: Author.
30.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1994). EEOC's expanding workload increases in age discrimination and other charges call for new approach. Washington, DC: Author.
31.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1995, May 23). Testimony by Linda G. Moria, director, education and employment issues, Health, Education, and Human Services Division to U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Washington, DC: Author.
32.
U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor. (1994, July 26). Oversight hearing on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Select Education and Civil Rights of the Committee on Education and Labor. 103rd Cong., 2nd Sess.
33.
U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. (1992, April 28). Oversight on activities of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Employment and Productivity of the Committe on Labor and Human Resources. 102nd Cong. 2nd Sess.
34.
U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources. (1995, May 23). Oversight of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Hearing Before the Committee on Labor and Human Resources. 1204th Cong. 1st Sess.
35.
West, J. (1994). Federal implementation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 1991–1994. New York: Milbank Memorial Fund.
36.
Will, G. (1996, April 4). Moral defect or medical problem?San Diego Union Tribune, p. 2.
37.
Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.
38.
Zuriff, G. E. (1996, Spring). Medicalizing character. The Public Interest, 94–99.
