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.

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.

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.

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.