BACKGROUND: This study investigated the experiences with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of adults with multiple sclerosis (MS) across three phases of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) implementation: Phase I (pre-Sutton decision era, 1992–1999), Phase II (Sutton decision era, 2000–2008), and Phase III (ADA Amendments Act era, 2009–2011).
OBJECTIVE: Research questions addressed differential (a) characteristics of charging parties and respondents, (b) patterns in the number and type of allegations, and (c) proportions of merit and non-merit EEOC judgments.
METHODS: The study utilized data from the Integrated Mission System of the U.S. EEOC.
RESULTS: Findings indicated that proportionally more women and Hispanic adults with MS filed claims during Phases II and III than during Phase I. More older individuals and African Americans with MS filed claims during Phase III than during Phases I and II. In Phase I, adults with MS were more likely to allege discrimination against smaller employers and less likely to file charges against larger employers, a trend that reversed during Phases II and III. The annual number of resolved EEOC charges appeared to increase during Phase I, increase then decrease in Phase II, and increase during Phase III. Regardless of phase, most allegations pertained to either unlawful discharge or failure to provide reasonable accommodations. Although higher in Phase III than in I, the percentage of EEOC merit decisions was highest in Phase II.
CONCLUSION: Over time, more typically disenfranchised individuals sought ADA protections, possibly due to publicity, support from advocates, and membership in a culture supporting diversity and nondiscrimination. The increased number of resolved allegations in Phase III was consistent with the greater inclusiveness attributed to the ADA Amendments Act. Interpretation of other findings is provided regarding characteristics of respondents, types of allegations, and trends in EEOC merit decisions.
AntaoL., ShawL., OllsonK., ReenK., TuF., BossersA., & CooperL. (2013). Chronic pain in episodic illness and its influence on work occupations. Work, 44, 11–36.
2.
BerkowitzA., DownesJ., EricssonK., & PatulloJ. (2014). The latest developments on coverage and reasonable accommodation under the amended ADA. Employee Relations Journal, 40(2), 3–25.
3.
BishopP., & JonesA. (1993). Implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: Assessing the variables of success. Public Administration Review, 53(2), 121–128.
ChapinM. (2012). The role of participation of people with disabilities in the new American workplace. In
TorielloP. J.,
BishopM. L., & RumrillP. D. (Eds.), New directions in rehabilitation counseling: Creative responses to professional, clinical, and educational challenges (pp. 236–254). Linn Creek, MO: Aspen Professional Services.
6.
CichyK. E.,
LiJ.,
McMahonB. T., &
RumrillP. D. (in press). The workplace discrimination experiences of older workers with disabilities: Results from the National EEOC ADA Research Project. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation.
7.
DorrianP. (2014). ADAAA at five: Intent largely realized, but interpretation still evolving. HR Focus. Washington, DC: Bloomberg BNA.
8.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2014). Fact sheet on the EEOC’s final regulations implementing the ADA. Washington, DC: Author.
9.
EssexN. (2002). Americans with Disabilities: Are they losing ground?The Clearinghouse, 75, 151–153.
10.
GostinL. (2003). At Law: The judicial dismantling of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Hastings Center Report, 33(2), 9–11.
11.
Job Accommodation Network (2014). The ADA Amendments of 2008. Morgantown, WV: University of West Virginia.
12.
JulianL., VellaL., VollmerT., HadjimichaelO., & MohrD. (2008). Employment in multiple sclerosis: Exiting and entering the work force. Journal of Neurology, 255, 1354–1360.
LeeB. (2001). The implications of ADA litigation for employers: A review of federal appellate court decisions. Human Resource Management, 40(1), 35–50.
15.
McMahonB. T., EdwardsR., RumrillP. D., & HurshN. (2005). An overview of the National EEOC ADA Research Project. Work, 25, 1–7.
16.
MelloJ. (2001). The rights of employees with disabilities: Supreme Court interpretations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the implications for human resource management. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 13, 175–190.
17.
MezeyS. (2005), Disabling interpretations: The Americans with Disabilities Act in federal court. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
18.
MooreP., HardingK., ClarksonH., PickersgillT., WardleM., & RobertsonN. (2013). Demographic and clinical factors associated with changes in employment in multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 19, 1647–1654.
19.
NeathJ., RoesslerR., McMahonB., & RumrillP. (2007). Patterns in perceived employment discrimination for adults with multiple sclerosis. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment, and Rehabilitation, 29, 255–274.
20.
NgT. H., & FeldmanD. C. (2010). The relationships of age with job attitudes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 63(3), 677–718.
21.
Office of Federal Compliance Contract Programs (2014). The ADA Amendments of 2008: Frequently asked questions. Washington, DC: Department of Labor. www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/faqs/ADAfaqs.htm, 7/29-2014
22.
PotterS. J., & BanyardV. L. (2011). The victimization experiences of women in the workforce: Moving beyond single categories of work or violence. Violence & Victims, 26(4), 513–532.
23.
RoesslerR. T., & SumnerG. (1997). Employer opinions about accommodating employees with chronic illnesses. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 28(3), 29–34.
24.
RothsteinL. (2014). Forty years of disability policy in legal education and the legal profession: What has happened and what are the new issues?Journal of Gender, Social Policy, and Law, 22(3), 519–650.
25.
RumrillP., RoesslerR., McMahonB., & FitzgeraldS. (2005). Multiple sclerosis and workplace discrimination: The National EEOC ADA Research Project. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 23, 179–188.
26.
StrauserD. (2013), Career development, employment, and disability in rehabilitation. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
27.
TanejaS., PryorM. G., & OylerJ. (2012). Empowerment and gender equality: The retention and promotion of women in the workforce. Journal of Business Diversity, 12(3), 43–53.
28.
VickersM. (2012). Antinarratives to inform health care research: Exploring workplace illness disclosure for people withmultiple sclerosis (MS). Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 35, 170–206.
29.
WestM., & CardyR. (1997). Accommodating claims of disability: The potential impact of abuses. Human Resource Management Review, 7, 233–246.
30.
WickertK., DresdenD., & RumrillP. (2013), The sandwich generations guide to eldercare. New York: Demos Medical Publishers.
