Introduction

Discrimination in hiring has long been a prominent issue facing members of protected classes in our society. Political efforts initially produced proscriptions against such discrimination based on racial/ethnic background, gender, religion, and age as evidenced by legislation at the national level. Specifically, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited bias in hiring based on “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” [1, p. 4]. Three years later, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 invoked similar protections on behalf of individuals 40 years of age and older [1]. However, concern about discrimination in employment affecting another minority group, namely people with disabilities, existed as well [2]. The manifestation of this awareness occurred in federal legislation in 1990 with the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) [3].

Protections for people with disabilities under Title I of the ADA cover both the hiring and retention phases of employment. Employers can neither refuse to hire applicants nor to accommodate employees based solely on the presence of a disability [4]. This article focuses on the first of these two protections; that is, the nature of hiring discrimination as reflected in allegations filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) between the years of 1992 and 2005 by adults with disabilities. The research questions that guided the present study included:

  • What is the prevalence of hiring discrimination allegations in the EEOC’s Integrated Mission Systems (IMS) database?

  • Does the prevalence of allegations of hiring discrimination vary according to the type of disability identified by Charging Parties?

  • To what extent do other personal characteristics known to produce hiring bias affect the perceptions of discrimination in hiring held by people with disabilities? Specifically, to what extent are age, gender, and racial/ethnic status related to the prevalence and pattern of hiring discrimination allegations filed by people with disabilities with the EEOC?

A Rationale for Studying Disability and Hiring Discrimination

One can easily make a case for the need to examine the problem of hiring discrimination for people with disabilities. First of all, many Americans are potentially negatively affected by employer prejudice against people with disabilities who are seeking employment. Endicott [5] estimated that roughly 12% of the workforce, or 21.3 million people, have disabilities that have an impact on their ability to work. Head and Baker [6] stated that as many as 50 million Americans have disabilities that affect their abilities to seek and secure employment, population estimates consistent with figures cited in the preamble of the ADA [3]. Consequently, 20–50 million Americans may experience barriers to equal employment opportunities due to disability. The United States can ill afford the loss of any of these potential members of the workforce given the labor shortage projected to result from the impending retirement of the “baby boomers” [7]. Secondly, employment is the gateway to both psychological and monetary benefits in our society. In fact, Schur, Kruse, and Blanck [8] stressed that remunerative employment is one of the primary contributors to the overall quality of life of people with disabilities as reflected in both their financial and social status. Finally, employment discrimination and the resulting denial of opportunity is a real factor for people with disabilities. One out of every five employers [8] and one out of every five employed people with disabilities [9] reported that discrimination in the workplace due solely to the presence of disability is a reality.

Hiring Discrimination and Disability: A Brief Background

The high jobless rates of people with disabilities constitute the most compelling evidence of the existence and persistence of hiring discrimination. Since 1986, the jobless rates of people with disabilities have approximated 66%. Based on random samples of 1000 adults with disabilities from the National Organization on Disability (NOD) Harris Survey, the jobless rates for adults with disabilities have been as follows: 1986–66%, 1994–69%, 1998–71%, 2000–68%, and 2004–65% [9–11]. These continuing high jobless rates provide further documentation of the position that Hernandez, Keys, and Balcazar [12] took regarding the “veneer” of employer receptivity toward people with disabilities. In their review of the literature, they noted that employers generally report positive attitudes toward people with disabilities; however, actual hiring rates, as evidenced by the NOD statistics, reveal just the opposite trend.

Researchers [13, 14] have attributed the persistence of stigma regarding disability and its negative impact on hiring to a variety of factors. For many people, disability is associated with low or no ability, an attribution that translates in employers’ minds to outcomes such as poor performance, sporadic attendance, and unsafe work behavior [3]. Employers and supervisors are also concerned about the perceived high costs of accommodations and the possibility of other workers demanding special consideration, resulting in loss of control by front-line supervisors [8].

The negative impact of the stigma that society attaches to disability is accentuated by the presence of other personal characteristics found to result in discrimination in hiring, e.g., age, racial/ethnic status, and gender. For example, O’Hara [15] used the term “twice disadvantaged” when speaking of the treatment in society that women with disabilities experience. Alston and Bell [16] made similar references to double jeopardy when discussing the combination of minority racial/ethnic and disability statuses. Hays [17] extended this logic by pointing out the cumulative negative effect of all “isms” on access to equal opportunity in society whether these “isms” result from age, gender, racial/ethnic status, or disability.

Up to this point, disability has been discussed as a generic concept related to discrimination in hiring rather than in terms of types of disabilities and differential treatment in the hiring process. However, evidence indicates that not all disabilities are the same when it comes to hiring discrimination. Past research on hiring has indicated that people with disabilities such as mental illness, mental retardation, and blindness tend to encounter more discrimination in job seeking [3, 13, 18]. Unger, Campbell, and McMahon [19] found that people with mental retardation filed more allegations of hiring discrimination than did a general disability group. They speculated that employers believed that accommodations would be more costly for adults with mental retardation and that individuals with mental retardation would require lengthy time in training and intensive on-the-job support. McMahon, Shaw, West, and Waid-Ebbs [20] found that adults with spinal cord injury reported higher levels of perceived hiring discrimination as measured by EEOC allegations than did a general disability comparison group. They attributed the perceptions of widespread hiring discrimination on the part of adults with spinal cord injury to the “spread of effect” phenomenon causing employers to view them as “less able” across the board (p. 160). Similar experiences regarding a higher incidence of hiring discrimination occurred in comparisons of EEOC allegation patterns of people with cerebral palsy and a general disability group. Lowman, West, and McMahon [21] suggested that adults with cerebral palsy experienced greater negative employer biases in hiring due to factors such as difficulties in communication, aesthetic considerations, and a general presumption of incapacity. These findings tend to support O’Hara’s [15] conclusion that the extent of discrimination in employment encountered by a person is in direct proportion to the level of prejudice maintained in the public mind toward the person’s disability.

If millions of Americans with disabilities have limited employment opportunities due to discrimination, it becomes extremely important to understand the dynamics of such barriers in more detail. For this reason, this investigation addressed both the prevalence of hiring discrimination alleged by people with disabilities and the factors that have the potential to influence the extent of such discrimination. With greater knowledge about the nature of hiring discrimination encountered by people with disabilities, rehabilitation professionals can: (a) better orient people with disabilities as to how to counter prejudice in the interview process, (b) improve education efforts designed to reduce stereotypes in employers’ minds, and (c) extend and enhance employment protections in legislation such as Title I of the ADA.

Method

All allegations examined in this study apply only to Title I (Employment provisions) of the ADA. Allegations of discrimination occur in situations in which individuals perceive that employment-related actions and/or decisions are based entirely on the presence of the person’s disability. The intent of this article is to determine how ADA Title I allegations of discrimination in hiring (n = 19,527) are different than allegations of other commonplace discriminatory issues with respect to characteristics of Charging Parties. The allegations comprising the comparison group include five primary or most frequently occurring issues representing 74% of all allegations in the EEOC’s IMS database, specifically discharge and constructive discharge; failure to accommodate; disability harassment and intimidation; and terms and conditions of employment. Although not among the most prevalent issues, intimidation is included because its definition is similar to that of harassment, and constructive discharge is included because of its close connection to discharge. The EEOC’s definitions of these issues and the frequency of allegations for each are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Target and comparison groups and their definitions
Full size table

Data Collection: The EEOC Investigation Process

Data for this study were collected by EEOC investigators in every U.S. state and territory. The EEOC issued regulations to enforce the employment provisions of ADA on July 26, 1991. The majority of cases will involve employers in the private sector with a workforce greater than or equal to 15 employees. Filing a charge of employment discrimination under ADA entails following the procedures outlined by the EEOC [22]. Enforcement of Title I by the EEOC is strictly a complaint-driven process. The EEOC cannot audit or otherwise seek out or pursue discriminatory activity in the absence of a complaint. All allegations, their investigatory progress, and their resolutions are maintained by the EEOC in a master database known as the Integrated Mission System, or IMS.

Project Design and Procedures

The EEOC charge data were transferred to authors from the EEOC via zip disk. Data needed to answer the research questions were extracted, coded, refined, and formatted in Microsoft Access using standard extraction criteria [23]. The result was a study-specific dataset in which the underlying unit of measure is the frequency of allegations, a ratio level of measurement. The design includes a number of variables:

  • Basis of the allegation, which is the impairment type that the Charging Party identifies to qualify him/her for ADA protections. The 39 impairment categories and their frequencies and percentages are given in Table 2 in the Results section.

  • Age, an interval level variable with eight categories including Under 18, 18 to 21, 22 to 29, 30 to 39, 40 to 49, 50 to 59, 60 to 65, and 66 + years of age.

  • Gender, a nominal variable, Male or Female.

  • Race/Ethnicity, a nominal variable with nine categories including: White, African American, Hispanic/Mexican, Other, Asian, Native American/Alaskan Native, Mixed Ethnicity, and Unknown.

The research questions follow:

  • Is there a difference in the proportion of Hiring vs. Non-hiring allegations that can be attributed to the type of impairment of the Charging Party?

  • Is there a difference in the proportion of Hiring vs. Non-hiring allegations that can be attributed to the age of the Charging Party?

  • Is there a difference in the proportion of Hiring vs. Non-hiring allegations that can be attributed to the gender of the Charging Party?

  • Is there a difference in the proportion of Hiring vs. Non-hiring allegations that can be attributed to the race/ethnicity of the Charging Party?

Data were analyzed to answer the stated research questions in two primary ways. First, descriptive statistics were used to detail the various groups and attributes thereof. Second, tests of proportion were conducted to compare the target group (i.e., people who filed hiring allegations) with the comparison group (i.e., people who filed high-frequency non-hiring allegations) on allegation combinations of interest using MINITAB. To compensate for the effects of multiple testing, alpha levels were set conservatively at ≤.01. These analyses yielded Z scores (distributed as X 2) and 95% confidence intervals.

Table 2 Hiring and non-hiring allegations by impairment type of charging parties
Full size table

Results

The overarching purpose of the present study was to differentiate ADA Title I allegations related to hiring from those allegations involving other commonly asserted discriminatory actions (i.e., discharge, constructive discharge, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, harassment/intimidation, terms and conditions of employment). In this study, those two groups of allegations (i.e., hiring and non-hiring) were compared based upon the characteristics of the Charging Parties who filed ADA Title I allegations with the EEOC between 1992 and 2005. The Charging Party characteristics that were used to differentiate the two groups of allegations were impairment type, age, gender, and race/ethnicity. Descriptive data for hiring and non-hiring allegations by impairment type of Charging Parties are listed in Table 2.

As can be seen in Table 2, hiring allegations were most frequently filed by Charging Parties whose impairment types were related to the structure and function of the back. In descending order, the next most frequently represented impairment types in the set of hiring allegations were hearing, non-paralytic/orthopedic, vision, depression, diabetes, other psychological, and missing digits/limbs. Similarly, non-hiring allegations were most often filed by people whose impairment types were related to the back, followed in descending order by non-paralytic/orthopedic, depression, diabetes, heart/cardiovascular, other psychological, and other neurological.

A z-test for difference between two proportions revealed that, in comparison to the non-hiring group, Charging Parties who filed hiring allegations were overrepresented for twelve impairment types: hearing (z (N = 7,807) = 20.69, P < .001), vision (z (N = 6,016) = 19.95, P < .001), missing digits/limbs (z (N = 2,524) = 12.62, P < .001), paralysis (z (N = 1,937) = 12.56, P < .001), cerebral palsy (z (N = 1,264) = 10.93, P < .001), other respiratory or pulmonary (z (N = 2,505) = 10.73, P < .001), speech (z (N = 1,372) = 8.70, P < .001), schizophrenia (z (N = 987) = 7.90, P < .001), disfigurement (z (N = 618) = 7.80, P < .001), epilepsy (z (N = 4,554) = 4.54, P < .001), dwarfism (z (N = 103) = 3.93, P < .001), and drug addiction (z (N = 1,734) = 3.79, P < .001).

In comparison to the non-hiring group, Charging Parties who filed hiring allegations were underrepresented for sixteen impairment types: anxiety (z (N = 7,313) = −26.57, P < .001), non-paralytic/orthopedic (z (N = 23,407) = −20.41, P < .001), depression (z (N = 17,853) = −17.67, P < .001), asthma (z (N = 4,681) = −16.12, P < .001), gastrointestinal (z (N = 2,249) = −15.96, P < .001), cumulative trauma (z (N = 2,646) = −11.82, P < .001), heart/cardiovascular (z (N = 8,921) = −11.24, P < .001), allergies (z (N = 1,723) = −11.01, P < .001), cancer (z (N = 5,710) = −10.91, P < .001), back (z (N = 32,981) = −10.33, P < .001), other neurological (z (N = 7,708) = −8.67, P < .001), chemical sensitivities (z (N = 958) = −8.55, P < .001), bipolar disorder (z (N = 7,676) = −6.45, P < .001), other blood (z (N = 2,745) = −6.00, P < .001), multiple sclerosis (z (N = 3,297) = −5.91, P < .001), and diabetes (z (N = 10,052) = −5.24, P < .001).

Table 3 displays the frequencies and percentages for the following three variables: age, race/ethnicity, and gender.

Table 3 Hiring and non hiring allegations by age of charging parties
Full size table

With regard to age, a categorically coded variable, Table 3 presents the frequencies and percentages across the two allegation groupings. A z-test for difference between two proportions revealed that, in comparison to the non-hiring group, Charging Parties who filed hiring allegations were overrepresented in the 18–21 (z (N = 2,267) = 3.99, P < .001), 22–29 (z (N = 20,322) = 10.12, P < .001) and 66 and over (z (N = 4,277) = 10.72, P < .001) age ranges and underrepresented in the 40–49 (z (N = 89,949) = −7.76, P < .001), 50–59 (z (N = 57,054) = −3.44, P = .001), and 60–65 (z (N = 11,991) = −4.43, P < .001) age brackets.

Descriptive data for race and ethnicity categories across allegation groupings are also presented in Table 3. When looking at categories of race, hiring allegations were most frequently field by Charging Parties who identified themselves as White, followed in descending order by Charging Parties who identified as African American, Other, Hispanic/Mexican, Asian, Native American/Alaskan Native, Mixed, and Unknown. Likewise, non-hiring allegations were most often filed by people who identified themselves as White, followed in descending order by people who identified as African American, Other, Hispanic/Mexican, Asian, Native American/Alaskan Native, Mixed, and Unknown.

A z-test for difference between two proportions revealed that, in comparison to the non-hiring group, Charging Parties who filed hiring allegations were overrepresented in the White (z (N = 152,298) = 21.12, P < .001) and Native American/Alaskan Native (z (N = 1,569) = 3.75, P < .001) groups and underrepresented in the African American (z (N = 48,246) = −14.76, P < .001), Other (z (N = 21,616) = −8.08, P < .001), and Hispanic/Mexican (z (N = 16,121) = −2.98, P = .003) groups.

With regard to gender, also shown in Table 3, the hiring group was 34.7 percent female (N = 6747) and 65.3 percent male (N = 12,719), whereas the non-hiring group was 50.0 percent female (N = 129,178) and 50.0 percent male (N = 129,298). A z-test for difference between two proportions revealed that the hiring group had proportionally more males and proportionally fewer females than did the comparison group of non-hiring Charging Parties (z (N = 142,117) = 43.13, P < .001; z (N = 135,925) = −42.90, P < .001).

Discussion

Hiring Discrimination in Perspective

Data in this study and in previous research on EEOC allegations support the broad generalization that claims of employment discrimination are more about job retention than job acquisition [2, 23]. In this investigation of EEOC allegations from 1992 to 2005, hiring ranked fifth in frequency among the top five allegation categories. Discharge, reasonable accommodation, terms and conditions of employment, and disability harassment and intimidation occurred more often than hiring as official allegations of discrimination filed with the EEOC. Certainly, these findings underscore the importance of job retention interventions that address such needs as early barrier identification and accommodation planning and employee education regarding procedures for seeking and securing reasonable accommodations and for asserting one’s rights in the employment setting [24, 25].

All of these on-the-job interventions designed to enhance job retention are reminiscent of the call for additional rehabilitation personnel who can fulfill the role of a career development specialist who is involved in helping employees with disabilities retain their employment [26, 27]. Although it is not clear how these services should be funded and provided, the need for them is apparent. Advocates might call for the development of resources to enable the state-Federal VR program to provide such job retention services. Employee Assistance Programs in business and industry could offer job retention interventions as part of their mission as an indication of the private sector’s commitment to reducing the impact of employment discrimination [28].

Hiring Discrimination and Impairment Type

By the same token, this study does focus on the issue of hiring discrimination, and it is therefore important to examine trends in hiring discrimination and suggest responses to such trends. In the information regarding hiring discrimination and impairment types, it appeared that the more common the physical impairment, the lower the proportion of hiring allegations in comparison to the proportion of the comparison group of allegations. One possible interpretation is that many of these conditions worsen with time and are more likely to become employment-related factors after the person has been on the job a while rather than during the time the person is seeking a job. Moreover, many of the conditions such as diabetes, back injuries, non-paralytic/orthopedic impairment, and cardio-vascular disorders are invisible, and interviewers are precluded from asking about the presence of any disabilities during the job interview [29]. Consequently, the topic of disability does not come up as frequently during the interview process as it would later in the individual’s vocational life when disability-related limitations result in concerns vis-a-vis unfair discharge or denial of a reasonable accommodation. The only way such a condition might affect the hiring process is if it were discovered during a medical examination mandated for all applicants, which may explain why some of the less frequent and invisible conditions such as epilepsy are associated with a higher proportion of hiring discrimination allegations. Of course, the opposite is true for blindness and deafness, which are usually apparent to the interviewer and therefore spur discriminatory conduct during the hiring process.

The case of Holiday v. the City of Chattanooga [30] is one example of an impairment that is either disclosed or noticed during the hiring process. Seeking a job as a police officer in Chattanooga, Holiday did very well in the interview, met all written and physical requirements, and passed the medical examination. During the examination, Mr. Holiday told the examining physician that he (Mr. Holiday) was infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. The physician advised the personnel director for the City of Chattanooga to not hire Mr. Holiday because Holiday would not have the stamina or endurance to perform reliably as a police officer and because his HIV condition posed a danger of harm to others through transfer of fluids. Holiday’s suit against the city was dismissed by the District Court but upheld by the Court of Appeals on appeal. The Court of Appeals ruled that Holiday passed all job-related tests, that he had a history of working successfully as a police officer, and that the city had not taken into account these facts in denying him employment.

Research regarding the relative proportions of hiring discrimination and non-hiring discrimination for individuals with paralysis and neurological conditions confirm previous findings in the literature. For example, the allegation groups including people with spinal cord injuries and individuals with cerebral palsy reported a higher proportion of hiring discrimination allegations than of discrimination allegations in the other primary issue categories. McMahon, Shaw, West, and Waid-Ebbs [20] and Lowman et al. [21] attributed this higher incidence of perceived hiring discrimination for people with paralysis and cerebral palsy to the strong underlying negative attitudes toward the conditions, to the visibility of the condition to the employer, and to the psychological phenomenon of “spread of effect.” In the case of spinal cord injury, interviewers may assume that the severity of the physical disability is indicative of other significant limitations in interpersonal and cognitive functioning. The communication difficulties the employer encounters in the interview in the case of cerebral palsy may result in conclusions that the person is unable to perform adequately in a work setting. Other groups of people in the sample, such as individuals with speech impairments and individuals who are deaf, may report higher proportions of perceived hiring discrimination due to these same communication and spread-of-effect reasons.

Both sensory conditions—blindness and deafness—were associated with higher proportions of alleged hiring discrimination which is consistent with the literature in which sensory disabilities, particularly blindness, elicit stereotypical thinking on the employer’s part regarding the person’s employment potential [31]. Unger et al. [18] traced some of this resistance to hiring people who are blind to employers’ reports that reasonable accommodations in the screening/hiring process were most difficult to make for people who are blind. Employers may view accommodation as “counter-intuitive” to their notions of effective applicant screening which would suggest that new hires should have the highest probability of success without any need for “expensive” and possibly ineffective accommodations in the workplace [32]. Waterstone [33] discussed how employers view the so-called “accommodations mandate” of the ADA as a proactive or affirmative action step which exceeds their responsibilities. Given these employer attitudes, people with sensory disabilities should be well prepared to describe their work potential, their ability to perform essential functions successfully in the past, and the value of affordable and available assistive technology to enhance their performance.

Sometimes this stereotypical thinking about the limitations of persons with sensory disabilities such as deafness bars access even to jobs that the person could do without accommodations. In a recent case involving America Online [34], Davidson, a deaf individual, was not hired by AOL for a non-voicephone customer assistance position. He applied one year later for a non-voicephone position with AOL but was told that he could not apply for such positions because they were filled from within the company by voicephone customer assistants who were being displaced due to outsourcing of that service to the Philippines.

At the time of his second rejection by AOL, Davidson brought suit under the ADA claiming that he had been discriminated against in the hiring process for two positions for non-voicephone customer consultants over the span of about one year. The District Court dismissed his claim in summary judgment because too much time had elapsed between the first event of alleged discrimination and his filing with the EEOC. The court also ruled that he had not established discrimination in the second event because he was not qualified for the transfer to a non-voicephone position since non-voicephone positions were restricted to current voicephone employees displaced due to outsourcing of their current jobs. A person who is deaf was not qualified to hold a voicephone position in the first place.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that Davidson’s first allegation of hiring discrimination was “time barred,” but they did rule in his favor on the second allegation of discrimination and sent the case back to court. Essentially, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that AOL could not establish internal qualifications for a position that were not job-related. Therefore Davidson was a qualified applicant for a non-voicephone position, and a jury should decide whether past experience as a voicephone assistant represented a legal job requirement.

Allegations from individuals with substance abuse backgrounds represented a very small number in the total sample of hiring discrimination charges. With that said, drug addiction was overrepresented among Charging Parties who filed ADA Title I hiring allegations. Although drug addiction is rarely disclosed during the hiring process, it would appear from these findings that, when it is disclosed prior to a job offer, employers tend to choose not to hire the applicant on the basis of his or her addiction—hence the high proportion of addicts in the hiring allegation group. It is important to recognize that individuals with substance abuse problems are not covered under the ADA if they are currently illegal substances, so it is likely that many of the hiring and non-hiring allegations filed under Title I of the ADA are resolved in the employer’s favor.

Estimated at 80–85%, the jobless rate of individuals with psychological disabilities is higher than that of most groups of people with disabilities [35]. Apparently factors contributing to this high unemployment rate are not always present during the hiring phase, because the proportion of hiring discrimination is lower than the proportion of other allegations for conditions such as anxiety, bipolar disorder, depression, and other psychological conditions. Just the opposite, however, is true for schizophrenia in which the proportion of allegations of hiring discrimination exceeds that of the comparison allegations. Possibly the former conditions are less obvious during the interview process, particularly given evidence that suggests that one-half to two-thirds of people with emotional disabilities may eventually control their symptoms reasonably well and not experience increasing disability over time [36].

Hiring Discrimination and Age of Applicant

Results on proportions of hiring and non-hiring allegations viewed in terms of age indicated that younger and older individuals were more likely to allege discrimination in hiring than were middle-aged individuals. Specifically, individuals from 18 to 29 had a higher proportion of hiring allegations, as did individuals 66 years of age and older. Individuals between the ages of 30 and 65 were more likely to file non-hiring allegations. Younger workers are less experienced and more often marginalized than more experienced workers, so it stands to reason that this group of workers would perceive more hiring discrimination. The fact that workers 66 and over also had disproportionately high rates of hiring allegations is consistent with research documenting the existence of age discrimination in the workplace [1, 22]. At first glance, it may seem strange that individuals older than 65 would be filing hiring discrimination allegations, but one should remember that more than 1 in 8 in this age group are active in the employment arena [5].

The age-based differences in proportion of hiring allegations are consistent with common sense and with well known models of career development. In Super’s career theory [37], young adults enter the world of work during the acquisition phase of career development, and they would be expected to encounter more barriers to employment access during the hiring phase. Older individuals, on the other hand, are involved in the establishment and maintenance phases of employment which involves concerns about discharge, harassment, and reasonable accommodation.

Rehabilitation professionals and employers should consider these age-related differences in employment discrimination in the development of programs. Younger individuals with disabilities need assistance with their job seeking skills such as conducting one’s self in the job interview, completing the job application, and organizing the job search [38]. They need better preparation for the world of work in terms of education and training and more support during the job acquisition process [39]. Older individuals need access to career support provided by rehabilitation professionals to learn how to identify barriers to on-the-job productivity and to reduce or remove those barriers through proper accommodations. They need information regarding helpful websites such as the Job Accommodation Network (JAN) [40] so that they could conduct their own searches for feasible accommodations and appropriate vendors [41]. They also need easier access to financial support while out of work and improved return-to-work policies and practices in business and industry [39].

Hiring Discrimination and Gender

Results on gender and proportion of hiring allegations versus other major allegations are somewhat counter to expectation and research. Men with disabilities were more likely than women with disabilities to file hiring allegations. The proportion of hiring allegations did not support the double disadvantage findings for women with disabilities of O’Hara [15]. Tentative explanations for this finding do, however, exist in the literature. For example, Bell and Klein [42] reviewed models of disability and stigma and discussed the possibility that men with disabilities may encounter more prejudice among employers than women with disabilities because men with disabilities are viewed as refutations of the stereotypical male characteristics of independence, strength, and power.

The greater likelihood of hiring allegations among males with disabilities may also have something to do with males simply being more assertive about such matters. Possibly they are more likely to act on the civil rights model of disability [32] underlying the disability movement and the creation of the ADA. It is also quite probable that women with disabilities encounter less discrimination in the hiring process not because there is less discrimination against them but because they are less likely to apply for jobs considered nontraditional or high status. For example, Chatterjee and Mitra [43] noted that women with disabilities are concentrated in the “feminized” or service sectors of the economy. Their application for such positions would not run counter to the public’s expectations of the roles they should play and, consequently, they would encounter less discrimination in the hiring process. Women with disabilities are also less likely to work in positions of high status or authority, once again explaining why they would not encounter discrimination if they are relegated to only applying for low status and low authority positions [42].

Hiring Discrimination and Racial/Ethnic Status

Results on racial/ethnic status are also contrary to expectations and difficult to explain. Research clearly indicates that individuals from minority groups experience a negative bias in the hiring process that is only compounded by the presence of disability [16], yet the proportion of hiring discrimination allegations versus other retention-related allegations was higher for White and Native American/Alaskan Native individuals than for African American, Hispanic/Mexican, and other racial/ethnic status individuals. Social cognitive career theory and social learning theory [44] may offer one plausible explanation in its depiction of the expectations that have an impact on behavior. These expectations are of two types—self-efficacy and outcome expectations. Self-efficacy has to do with whether individuals believe that they can perform the behaviors required to achieve a certain outcome while outcome expectations refer to their beliefs that it would matter if they acted in such ways. Possibly, African American and Hispanic/Mexican individuals have come to have strong negative outcome expectations regarding the utility of their allegations of discrimination in the hiring process. They may take the pessimistic point of view that such allegations will have little effect and that their time and effort is better spent in continuing to search for jobs rather than in filing charges of discrimination with the EEOC.

There are other possible explanations as well. The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992 came about in response to documentation that persons with disabilities from racial and ethnic minority groups comprised an “underserved population” when it came to their involvement with the state-federal vocational rehabilitation program. Other authors have documented the complications arising from language barriers, cultural differences, or a sense of distrust toward government programs. For example, pursuant to developing capacity building programs to ameliorate these barriers, Balcazar, Keys and Suarez [45] discovered that 93% of Hispanics/Mexicans with disabilities in Chicago were unaware of their rights and responsibilities under the ADA. Finally, some minority group members may choose to bring their grievances under Title VII of the ADA which has fewer ambiguities, more case law, and more generous remedies for breach for African Americans.

Conclusion

Although allegations of hiring discrimination represent a small minority of all ADA Title I allegations filed by people with disabilities since 1992, employers and disability advocates continue to express significant concern regarding the accessibility and fairness of application and hiring procedures in the American labor market. Indeed, the uniqueness of hiring discrimination as an impediment to the employment of people with disabilities is borne in the findings of this study, which indicate that the people who file ADA Title I hiring allegations are characteristically different than those who file allegations not involving hiring.

Specifically, Charging Parties who filed hiring allegations between 1992 and 2005 tended to be people with more obvious physical or sensory disabilities than the non-hiring comparison group. Charging Parties in the hiring group were disproportionately younger and older, with the non-hiring group having proportionately more middle-aged members. Males, Whites, and Native Americans filed proportionately more hiring allegations than did women and other racial or ethnic groups. Taken in aggregate, these findings strongly suggest a risk profile for perceived hiring discrimination that is evident in the demographic characteristics of Charging Parties. By understanding what types of individuals are most and least likely to file hiring allegations, rehabilitation professionals, employers, and other stakeholders can tailor information and interventions designed to reduce the incidence and impact of hiring discrimination in a way that benefits workers and employers alike.