Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 2/2008

01-06-2008

A Comparison of EEOC Closures Involving Hiring Versus Other Prevalent Discrimination Issues Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

Authors: Brian T. McMahon, Jessica E. Hurley, Steven L. West, Fong Chan, Richard Roessler, Phillip D. Rumrill Jr.

Published in: Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation | Issue 2/2008

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction This article describes findings from a causal comparative study of the Merit Resolution rate for allegations of Hiring discrimination that were filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) between 1992 and 2005. An allegation is the Charging Party’s perception of discrimination, but a Merit Resolution is one in which the EEOC has determined that a discriminatory event did indeed occur. A Non-Merit Resolution is an allegation that is closed due to a technicality or lacks sufficient evidence to conclude that discrimination occurred. Merit favors the Charging Party; Non-Merit favors the Employer. Methods The Merit Resolution rate of 19,527 closed Hiring allegations is compared and contrasted to that of 259,680 allegations aggregated from six other prevalent forms of discrimination including Discharge and Constructive Discharge, Reasonable Accommodation, Disability Harassment and Intimidation, and Terms and Conditions of Employment. Tests of Proportion distributed as chi-square are used to form comparisons along a variety of subcategories of Merit and Non-Merit outcomes. Results The overall Merit Resolution rate for Hiring is 26% compared to Non-Hiring at 20.6%. Employers are less likely to settle claims of hiring discrimination without mediation, and less likely to accept the remedies recommended by the EEOC when hiring discrimination has been determined. Conclusion Hiring is not an unusual discrimination issue in that the overwhelming majority of allegations are still closed in favor of the Employer. However, it is counterintuitive that Hiring has a higher merit resolution rate than other prevalent issues. This finding contradicts the assumption that hiring is an “invisible process.” Considering that the EEOC makes merit determinations at a competitive rate, it is clear that hiring is sufficiently transparent.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Huffcutt AI, Conway M, Roth PL, Stone NJ. Identification and meta-analytic assessment of psychological constructs measured in employment interviews. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(5):897–913.PubMedCrossRef Huffcutt AI, Conway M, Roth PL, Stone NJ. Identification and meta-analytic assessment of psychological constructs measured in employment interviews. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(5):897–913.PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference McMahon BT, Hurley JE, Chan F, Rumrill P, Roessler, Richard. Drivers of hiring discrimination for Americans with disabilities. J Occup Rehab. 2008; in press. McMahon BT, Hurley JE, Chan F, Rumrill P, Roessler, Richard. Drivers of hiring discrimination for Americans with disabilities. J Occup Rehab. 2008; in press.
3.
go back to reference Posthuma RA, Morgeson FP, Campion MA. Beyond employment interview validity: a comprehensive narrative review of recent research and trends over time. Personnel Psychol. 2002;55:1–81.CrossRef Posthuma RA, Morgeson FP, Campion MA. Beyond employment interview validity: a comprehensive narrative review of recent research and trends over time. Personnel Psychol. 2002;55:1–81.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Arvonio L, Cull I, Marini I. Employment interview perceptions of persons with visible disabilities. Int J Rehabil Res. 1997;2(3):413–24.CrossRef Arvonio L, Cull I, Marini I. Employment interview perceptions of persons with visible disabilities. Int J Rehabil Res. 1997;2(3):413–24.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Cesare SJ, Tannenbaum RJ, Dalessio A. Interviewers’ decisions related to applicant handicap type and rater empathy. Hum Perform.1990;3:157–71.CrossRef Cesare SJ, Tannenbaum RJ, Dalessio A. Interviewers’ decisions related to applicant handicap type and rater empathy. Hum Perform.1990;3:157–71.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Charisiou J, Jackson HJ, Boyle GJ, Burgess PM, Minas IH, Joshua SD. Employment interview skills best predict employability of schizophrenic patients? Psychol Rep. 1989;64:683–94.PubMed Charisiou J, Jackson HJ, Boyle GJ, Burgess PM, Minas IH, Joshua SD. Employment interview skills best predict employability of schizophrenic patients? Psychol Rep. 1989;64:683–94.PubMed
7.
go back to reference Christman LA, Branson DH. Influence of physical disability and dress of female job applicant on interviewers. Cloth Text Res J. 1990;8:51–7.CrossRef Christman LA, Branson DH. Influence of physical disability and dress of female job applicant on interviewers. Cloth Text Res J. 1990;8:51–7.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Gething L. Nurse practictioner’s and preservice teachers’ attitudes towards people with disabilities. Aust J Adv Nurs. 1992;9(3):25–30.PubMed Gething L. Nurse practictioner’s and preservice teachers’ attitudes towards people with disabilities. Aust J Adv Nurs. 1992;9(3):25–30.PubMed
9.
go back to reference Hayes TL, Macan TH. Comparison of the factors influencing interviewer Hiring decisions for applicants with and those without disabilities. J Bus Psychol. 1997;11:357–71.CrossRef Hayes TL, Macan TH. Comparison of the factors influencing interviewer Hiring decisions for applicants with and those without disabilities. J Bus Psychol. 1997;11:357–71.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Hebl MR, Kleck RE. Acknowledging one’s stigma in the interview setting: strategy or liability? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA, April, 1999. Hebl MR, Kleck RE. Acknowledging one’s stigma in the interview setting: strategy or liability? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA, April, 1999.
11.
go back to reference Henry DB. The employment interview and persons with disabilities: an investigation using the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois-Chicago, 1993. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 3884. Henry DB. The employment interview and persons with disabilities: an investigation using the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois-Chicago, 1993. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 3884.
12.
go back to reference Herold KP. The effects of an interviewee’s self-disclosure and disability on selected perceptions and attitudes of interviewers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi, 1995. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 28. Herold KP. The effects of an interviewee’s self-disclosure and disability on selected perceptions and attitudes of interviewers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi, 1995. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 28.
13.
go back to reference Nordstrom CR, Huffaker BJ, Williams KB. When physical disabilities are not liabilities: the role of applicant and interviewer characteristics on employment interview outcomes. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1998;28:283–306.CrossRef Nordstrom CR, Huffaker BJ, Williams KB. When physical disabilities are not liabilities: the role of applicant and interviewer characteristics on employment interview outcomes. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1998;28:283–306.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Macan TH, Hayes TL. Both sides of the employment interview interaction: perceptions of interviewers and applicants with disabilities. Rehabil Psychol. 1995;40:261–78.CrossRef Macan TH, Hayes TL. Both sides of the employment interview interaction: perceptions of interviewers and applicants with disabilities. Rehabil Psychol. 1995;40:261–78.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Marchioro CA, Bartels LK. Perceptions of a job interviewee with a disability. Special issue: psychosocial perspectives on disability. J Soc Behav Pers. 1994;9(2):383–94. Marchioro CA, Bartels LK. Perceptions of a job interviewee with a disability. Special issue: psychosocial perspectives on disability. J Soc Behav Pers. 1994;9(2):383–94.
16.
go back to reference Miceli NS. An investigation of bias toward persons with disabilities m employment selection decisions. Doctoral dissertation. University of Oklahoma, 1996. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 3580. Miceli NS. An investigation of bias toward persons with disabilities m employment selection decisions. Doctoral dissertation. University of Oklahoma, 1996. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 3580.
17.
go back to reference Reilly NP, Bocketti S, Maser S, Gregson S, Records M, Strickland C, et al. Perceptions of prior disabilities in structured selection interviews. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA, April, 2000. Reilly NP, Bocketti S, Maser S, Gregson S, Records M, Strickland C, et al. Perceptions of prior disabilities in structured selection interviews. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA, April, 2000.
18.
go back to reference Wright GE, Multon KD. Employer’s perceptions of nonverbal communication in job interviews for persons with physical disabilities. J Vocat Behav. 1995;47:214–27.CrossRef Wright GE, Multon KD. Employer’s perceptions of nonverbal communication in job interviews for persons with physical disabilities. J Vocat Behav. 1995;47:214–27.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Drehmer DE, Bordieri JE. Hiring decisions for disabled workers: the hidden bias. Rehabil Psychol. 1985;30:157–64.CrossRef Drehmer DE, Bordieri JE. Hiring decisions for disabled workers: the hidden bias. Rehabil Psychol. 1985;30:157–64.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Bordieri J, Drehmer D, Taricone P. Personnel selection bias for job applicants with cancer. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1990;20:244–53.CrossRef Bordieri J, Drehmer D, Taricone P. Personnel selection bias for job applicants with cancer. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1990;20:244–53.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Gouvier WD, Steiner DD, Jackson WT, Schlater D, Rain J. Employment discrimination against handicapped job applicants: an analog study of the effects of neurological causation, visibility of handicap and public contact. Rehabil Psychol. 1991;36:121–9.CrossRef Gouvier WD, Steiner DD, Jackson WT, Schlater D, Rain J. Employment discrimination against handicapped job applicants: an analog study of the effects of neurological causation, visibility of handicap and public contact. Rehabil Psychol. 1991;36:121–9.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Gourvier WD, Sytsma-Jordan S, Mayville S. Patterns of discrimination in Hiring job applicants with disabilities: the role of disability type, job complexity, and public contact. Rehabil Psychol. 2005;48(3):175–81.CrossRef Gourvier WD, Sytsma-Jordan S, Mayville S. Patterns of discrimination in Hiring job applicants with disabilities: the role of disability type, job complexity, and public contact. Rehabil Psychol. 2005;48(3):175–81.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference McMahon B. Workplace discrimination against Americans with disabilities. Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Workplace Supports and Job Retention, 2006. McMahon B. Workplace discrimination against Americans with disabilities. Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Workplace Supports and Job Retention, 2006.
Metadata
Title
A Comparison of EEOC Closures Involving Hiring Versus Other Prevalent Discrimination Issues Under the Americans with Disabilities Act
Authors
Brian T. McMahon
Jessica E. Hurley
Steven L. West
Fong Chan
Richard Roessler
Phillip D. Rumrill Jr.
Publication date
01-06-2008
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation / Issue 2/2008
Print ISSN: 1053-0487
Electronic ISSN: 1573-3688
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-008-9135-2

Other articles of this Issue 2/2008

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 2/2008 Go to the issue