Raising Awareness – What Companies Need To Know About Disability

Specific Stereotypes

6. DG: What are some of the specific myths, fears, and stereotypes regarding people with disabilities that are still prevalent today in the employer community?

There could also be myths, fears and stereotypes by employers about safety in the workplace.

— CK

Some employers still may have negative attitudes and misperceptions related to those with a history of mental health conditions. They may think a person with mental illness automatically means an elevated risk regarding threats of violence in the workplace. But that’s simply wrong.

The safety risks associated with mental disabilities are no greater than those associated with the population generally. Safety concerns also occur due to some physical conditions, not only mental impairments.

— CK

Business Case

7. DG: Can you talk about the business case for disability employment, especially in a tight labor market which we have today in the United States…

• CK: It’s usually the case that people with disabilities are very reliable, loyal and productive. There are studies, for example, that show absenteeism for employees with disabilities have been lower than among the general worker population. That leads to greater productivity.

Some people with disabilities have problem-solving skills that not only result from experience but also from their disability. This equates to effective problem solving for an employer. Also, the business case for diversity — which has been made ad nauseam — includes people with disabilities.

The benefits include expanding a company’s consumer base, added perspective in decision making and greater return on investment.

— CK

Some segments of the consumer base might also like to see companies assume a leadership role in terms of embracing accessibility to new technology for people with disabilities.

8. DG: According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, about 60 million people in America— or roughly one in five people — either have or will have a disability at some point in their lives. Anything to add about this?

• CK: Some would say that maybe the number is even greater than that because of the ADA’s expanding definition of disability — particularly since the law was amended in 2008 — you have a very broad definition of what constitutes a disability today.

The 60 million number sounds consistent with an upward trend in those estimates, about 20 million more people compared to when the ADA was passed in 1990.

— CK

9. DG: Can you talk about ADA enforcement by the EEOC and how this compares to other EEOC-laws enforced, like Title VII of the sweeping Civil Rights Act which covers multiple bases of discrimination, including race and sex?

• CK: The EEOC total caseload consists of over 30% of ADA charges alleging disability discrimination. We’re obtaining a lot of monetary relief for people with disabilities through resolving administrative charges, plus we are bringing a significant number of ADA lawsuits involving a variety of issues.

We also provide outreach and technical assistance to employers, which compliments enforcement.

— CK

Genetic Discrimination

10. DG: Due to new and evolving technology, such as decoding the human genome, is EEOC observing more genetic discrimination in the workplace?

• CK: The Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2008 — or GINA — is the most recent of the civil rights law for which the agency has authority.

Under GINA, employers cannot discriminate against employees or applicants based on genetic information. This includes family and medical history, as well as genetic testing. We see a small number of employment discrimination cases under GINA compared to the other EEOC-enforced laws. This is not surprising based on when the law was passed and what we were seeing at the state level with similar laws about genetic information.

The most common type of issue that comes up under GINA is related to family and medical history as part of employee medical examinations.

— CK

My Take…

As Chris clearly articulates above, it should be obvious by now that disability employment simply makes good business sense. Still, not every employer has gotten the message and not every company proactively promotes voluntary compliance with the law. That’s why disability discrimination at work remains a persistent problem 28 years after passage of the ADA and eight-years after the passage of the corresponding ADA Amendments Act. Too many disability-based myths, fears, and stereotypes abound, despite the business case for fostering workforce diversity — which includes employees with disabilities. People with disabilities represent a significant part of the U.S. population, in addition to a large pool of untapped talent for employers in a competitive global marketplace.

All companies need to be aware of disability issues, and not just during National Disability Employment Awareness Month. Employers need to show awareness every day and month of the year. But is awareness enough?

While disability employment awareness is certainly a good thing, employers also need to take steps to make sure it’s a priority. 

— CK

In essence, disability awareness alone is not enough. The business community should fully embrace proactive prevention, open communication, outreach, education and technical assistance efforts to promote voluntary compliance with the ADA and avoid discrimination. Disability discrimination against qualified employees and applicants may result in EEOC investigations and litigation, in addition to that of private plaintiffs. This only leads to wasted time, added business costs and negative publicity for employers — all of which can damage the brand image, while jeopardizing bottom line productivity and profits.

More companies need to increase their efforts to make disability employment a priority in the 21st-century workplace. Remember that voluntary compliance simply makes good business sense.

DBG