Changing human resource professionals from gatekeepers to enablers of disability employment: Lessons learned from disability-employment research

Abstract

Background

People with disabilities are one the most discriminated groups in the United States, and this discrimination negatively impacts the ability to find and maintain employment. While more companies are making it a priority to include people with disabilities in their workforces in order to diversify talent pools, many organizations still lack knowledge regarding the benefits of disability-employment and effective strategies for disability inclusion in the workplace.

Objective

There is a need to provide an integrative review of the disability inclusion literature for vocational rehabilitation professionals to expand employer engagement efforts by helping companies adopt strategies to hire and support people with disabilities in the workplace.

Method

A review of disability employment and disability inclusion publications was conducted. Findings from the research were compiled into a discussion of lessons learned for vocational rehabilitation professionals.

Results

The article shares the lessons learned from conducting disability-employment research with attention to the following domains: (1) stigmatizing attitudes of employers, (2) disability employment legislation, (3) characteristics of companies that promote disability-employment, (4) disability inclusion policies and practices, and (5) implicit bias and disability inclusion training for human resource (HR) professionals.

Conclusion

Providing employers and HR professionals with trainings on these domains will increase awareness of bias toward people with disabilities in the workplace and develop increasingly effective disability inclusion policies and practices for their organization.

Keywords

disability-employment human resources managers people with disabilities implicit attitudes toward people with disabilities disability discrimination

Introduction

People with disabilities are one the most discriminated groups in the United States. Stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination significantly affect their ability to find and maintain gainful employment. In July 2024, the employment rate of people with disabilities was 40.5%, strikingly lower than the 78.7% rate of people without disabilities (Kessler Foundation, 2024). Low disability-employment rates make people with disabilities vulnerable to the negative consequences of unemployment including depression, anxiety, stress, poor overall health, low self-esteem, demoralization, worry, physical pain, substance use, family problems, and poor life satisfaction (Chan et al., 2024; McKee-Ryan et al., 2005; Paul & Moser, 2009). To reduce disability discrimination in the workplace, the United Nations proclaims gainful employment is a fundamental human right of people with disabilities (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, n.d). In addition, the European Union developed the European Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021–2030 to ensure that all persons with disabilities in Europe have equal opportunities and access to participate in society and the economy (European Commission, 2021). In the United States, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) signed on July 26, 1990, prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in all areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and all public and private places that are open to the public.

Since the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the Black Lives Matter movement, employers are more aware of their implicit bias (at the individual level) and systemic discrimination (at the organizational level) against minorities, including people with disabilities (the largest minority group in America) in the workplace. Many companies now make it a priority to include people with disabilities in their workforces in order to diversify their talent pool. The benefit of disability inclusion is supported by a recent disability-employment study conducted by Accenture (2023), a Fortune Global 500 company. Findings of the study indicated that companies leading in disability inclusion efforts observed improved performance and productivity including 1.6 times more revenue, 2.6 times more net income, and 2 times more economic profit than their peers. Further, corporate leaders who implement disability inclusion are more likely to outperform industry peers in productivity by 25 percent. In other words, including people with disabilities in the workplace not only helps businesses meet their responsibility to social causes, but it is also good for their business (Herson, 2021; Schloemer-Jarvis et al., 2022).

Purpose

However, most companies may not be familiar with the benefits of disability-employment and effective strategies for disability inclusion in the workplace. As a result, there is a need to provide an integrative review of the disability inclusion literature for vocational rehabilitation professionals to expand their employer engagement efforts by helping disability-friendly companies adopt effective strategies to hire and support people with disabilities in the workplace. The purpose of this article is to share the lessons we have learned from reviewing and conducting disability-employment studies for several decades, and these lessons can be classified into the following domains: (1) stigmatizing attitudes of employers, (2) disability employment legislation, (3) characteristics of companies that promote disability-employment, (4) disability inclusion policies and practices, and (5) implicit bias and disability inclusion training for human resource (HR) professionals. Providing HR professionals with in-service trainings on these domains will help them to be more aware of implicit and explicit negative attitudes about people with disabilities as productive workers, feel more empowered to promote disability employment, and work with senior management to develop effective disability inclusion policies and practices.

Stigmatizing attitudes of employers

Disability inclusion research indicates that employers’ misperceptions about individuals with disabilities is a major barrier to the employment of people with disabilities. The United States Department of Labor's (USDOL) Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) conducted a focus group study with employers in 13 major metropolitan areas representing a variety of industries, company sizes, and for-profit and not-for-profit organizations to examine factors that prevent employers from hiring people with disabilities (Grizzard, 2005). The most common answer given by employers was that they need more accurate and practical information to dispel misperceptions and concerns about hiring and retaining people with disabilities. Employers also expressed concerns about the ability of people with disabilities to perform the type of work that the organization needs. Subsequently, ODEP conducted a large-scale survey to examine employers’ perspectives on the employment of people with disabilities, using a random sample of 7,387 companies (Domzal et al., 2008). Interviews were completed with 3,797 of the companies, for a response rate of 51.4 percent. Findings from this employer survey indicated that 11% of small companies, 23% of medium-sized companies, and 53% of large companies report employing people with disabilities. Consistent with the original ODEP 2005 study, most of the companies (72.6%) participating in the 2008 study indicated a major challenge to hiring people with disabilities is that they cannot effectively perform the nature of the work required. Additionally, health care costs, workers compensation costs, and fear of lawsuit are cited as major challenges by small and medium-sized companies (Domzal et al., 2008).

Amir et al. (2009) conducted a focus group study with employers in two large Midwest cities. Participants in this study identified many positive attributes and strong reasons for hiring people with disabilities. However, negative attitudes of co-workers and/or supervisors and the lack of qualified workers with disabilities were frequently cited as major barriers to hiring and retaining people with disabilities. Employers’ misperceptions about people with disabilities identified in Amir et al.’s (2009) study include: (1) people with disabilities often require extra time to learn new work tasks; (2) people with disabilities often require costly reasonable accommodations (e.g., specialized equipment, facility modifications, adjustments to work schedules or job duties) to do their job; (3) people with disabilities have trouble getting their work done on time and often need others to help them finish the job; (4) people with disabilities tend to call in sick more often than other workers due to health or personal problem; (5) people with disabilities tend to be litigious; (6) people with disabilities have trouble getting along with others on the job; and (7) co-workers are not very comfortable working with people with disabilities.

Kaye et al. (2011) continued research efforts in this area with a novel study of human resource professionals and supervisors working for employers known or reputed to be resistant to complying with the ADA's employment provisions. They found that the main reasons employers are not hiring people with disabilities can be attributed to their lack of awareness of disability and accommodation issues, concern over costs, and fear of legal liability. Bezyak et al. (2020a, 2020b) then developed and validated an employers’ stigmatizing attitudes measure using these employer misperceptions as items. They found that employers’ stigmatizing attitudes were negatively associated with intention and efforts to recruit and hire people with disabilities. Results point to the need to provide tailored interventions for employers and HR professionals to address these ongoing areas of concern.

Disability employment legislation

Disability stigma has significantly affected the employment opportunity of Americans with disabilities. In the United States, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a civil rights law passed on July 26, 1990, prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in all areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and public and private places that are open to the public. One of the requirements of Title I of the ADA is for employers to provide reasonable accommodations for qualified workers with disabilities to perform essential job functions. Research has indicated that companies with in-house staff who are knowledgeable about the ADA and reasonable accommodations are more likely to interview and hire qualified persons with disabilities (Chan et al., 2010).

In addition, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act requires all Federal contractors to establish a 7% utilization goal of including people with disabilities in the workplace (U.S. Department of Labor, 2014). Although the 7% utilization goal is only an aspiration and not a quota, companies who do not meet the 7% utilization goal are required to take steps to determine whether and where impediments to equal employment exist. Chan et al. (2021) examined the employment rates of people with disabilities in companies with federal contracts and companies without federal contracts. Companies with federal contracts were more likely to hire people with disabilities (M = 3.57% of the workforce, SD = 2.15%) than non-Federal contractors (M = 2.09% of the workforce, SD = 2.32%). Findings of this study suggest that vocational rehabilitation professionals, including rehabilitation counselors and job development specialists, should identify in-demand entry-level positions in the local job market, engage with companies that have federal contracts, and cooperate with local educational agencies to develop trainings for people with disabilities to complete successfully for in-demand entry-level occupations in companies with federal contracts.

Characteristics of companies that promote disability-employment

Chan and colleagues (2010) conducted an employer survey in the Midwestern region of the United States. They found that companies that include disability in their diversity and inclusion policies and procedures had higher representation of people with disabilities in their workforce. Additionally, HR managers who are knowledgeable about the ADA and reasonable accommodations were more positive about hiring people with disabilities. Habeck et al. (2010) reported that having an in-house disability management program and inclusion of disability in companies’ diversity and inclusion policies and procedures leads to hiring and retaining people with disabilities. Fraser and colleagues (2011) evaluated Ajzen's theory of planned behavior (TPB) constructs (attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control) as predictors of hiring intention. They found that company climate related to disability inclusion is influenced by normative beliefs of senior management, and their beliefs will either support or hinder the hiring of people with disabilities. The authors recommended that state administrators of VR agencies need to target their marketing and educational efforts to executive management of companies in their states to establish normative expectations supportive of disability inclusion in the workplace. Results also suggested that rehabilitation counselors and other disability service providers should increase their efforts to connect with employers through Chambers of Commerce, Rotary Clubs, Societies for Human Resources Managers, and State Business Leadership Networks.

Disability inclusion policies and practices

Bezyak et al. (2020a, 2020b) assessed disability inclusion strategies and their impact on employers’ hiring intentions using a sample of 180 employers. They identified six effective strategies, and including disability as a significant part of the company's inclusion and diversity policies and procedures was the most important. This item was also found to have the strongest correlation with employers’ intentions to hire individuals with disabilities. Bezyak's research prompted further investigation into the use of disability inclusion policies and practice among large corporations.

The development of the Disability Inclusion Profiler, a comprehensive tool comprising 34 items related to disability inclusion policies and practices, served as the next stage of disability inclusion research. This tool was informed by a thorough review of demand-side employment literature, focus groups with HR managers, and a Delphi study with employers to pinpoint effective inclusion practices (Chan et al., 2021; Iwanaga et al., 2021). Iwanaga et al. (2021) applied these items to evaluate organizational factors that influence disability employment and inclusion practices, surveying 284 HR managers and hiring professionals. Results indicated that disability inclusion preparedness was the strongest predictor of a company's employment rate for individuals with disabilities, consistent with prior demand-side research (e.g., Chan et al., 2010). Further exploring items of Disability Inclusion Profiler, Chan et al. (2021) examined the relationship between company characteristics, disability inclusion practices, and employment outcomes in the post-COVID-19 economy. Using a sample of 466 HR professionals, results showed that companies with strong leadership commitment, inclusive diversity policies, and dedicated accommodation practices were more likely to hire and retain employees with disabilities. Particularly, practices such as maintaining a dedicated accommodations budget, setting annual hiring targets for individuals with disabilities, and participating in disability-focused job fairs were closely linked to higher employment rates.

Chan et al. (2024) refined the original Disability Inclusion Profiler by identifying two key factors, executive-level and middle-management-level policies, through a factor analysis of 23 items. Their study revealed that executive-level practices, such as maintaining a budget for accommodations, providing disability inclusion training for HR recruiters, setting annual hiring targets, and publicly committing to disability inclusion, had a more significant impact on increased employment rates of individuals with disabilities. While both executive and middle-management policies contributed to higher disability employment rates, the study found that executive-level policies substantially diminished the influence of middle-management initiatives, underscoring the importance of a top-down approach (Chan et al., 2024). These findings align with broader literature, suggesting that leadership-driven strategies are more effective in increasing employment rates for individuals with disabilities (e.g., Chan et al., 2021; Fraser et al., 2011; Gilbride et al., 2003). Iwanaga et al. (2024) echoed these results, reinforcing that executive-level policies have a greater impact on employment outcomes than mid-level management strategies.

The series of studies on disability inclusion policies and practices (e.g., Chan et al., 2021, 2024; Iwanaga et al., 2021) strongly emphasize the importance of a top-down approach beginning at the executive level to transform workplace culture and foster a more inclusive environment for individuals with disabilities. The collective findings suggest that efforts to engage employers should prioritize collaboration with state governors to connect the leadership of state VR agencies with company executives. Once executive commitment is secured, state VR counselors and professionals can work with mid-level managers and human resource professionals to provide the necessary support for effectively interviewing, hiring, supporting, and promoting individuals with disabilities within organizations.

Implicit bias and disability inclusion training for HR professionals

As previously discussed, previous research documents stigma towards individuals with disabilities in the workplace (Amir et al., 2009; Domzal et al., 2008, Kaye et al., 2011), but this evidence runs contrary to employers’ reported beliefs about people with disabilities when specifically asked (Hernandez et al., 2000). The obvious disconnect between employers’ reported attitudes and hiring behaviors is related to the direct measurement of attitudes, which means participants are aware that their attitudes are being measures, and responses are altered to be more socially desirable (Antonak & Livneh, 1995; Pruett & Chan, 2006). The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is an alternative to direct measurement based on attribution theory, which focuses on the controllability of perceptions (Kelley, 1967). The IAT measures implicit cognition, which is bias that may be present even if negative attitudes are not overtly expressed (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Greenwald et al., 2002).

Strong research evidence exists to support the use of the IAT to measure implicit bias toward people with disabilities (Bezyak et al., 2020a, 2020b; Pruett & Chan, 2006). Previous investigations also exposed the negative impact of implicit bias on individuals with disabilities in the workplace. In one study employers were found to have strongly negative implicit attitudes about the competence of people who are blind (McDonnall & Antonelli, 2019). Another investigation highlighted negative implicit attitudes of employers towards individuals with depression and individuals with physical disabilities have been uncovered (Dovidio et al., 2011; Florence & Marc, 2021). These studies point to the importance of increased attention to implicit bias in the workplace and how it impacts hiring and retention practices of HR professionals.

Research strongly supports efforts to promote awareness and education of implicit bias toward people with disabilities among employers and HR professionals. Trainings for employers addressing implicit and explicit bias have been identified as effective tools to combat stigma in the workplace (Dolce & Bates, 2018; Florence & Marc, 2021; McDonnall & Antonelli, 2019). A recent meta-analysis documented moderately negative implicit bias toward people with disabilities and suggested strategies to shift bias are essential (Antonopoulos et al., 2023).

Bezyak and colleagues (2024) conducted focus groups of HR professionals in order to improve understanding of implicit and explicit bias towards individuals with disabilities and develop effective strategies to combat bias in the workplace. Findings outlined necessary content and techniques for training HR professionals on implicit bias toward individuals with disabilities. Initially, participants acknowledged the prevalence of bias towards individuals with disabilities in employment and suggested training must include clear examples of bias in the workplace and strategies to interrupt implicit bias. In addition, participants highlighted the need for information on disability inclusion policies and procedures in trainings for HR professionals, which aligns closely with previous research reviewed on the topic (Chan et al., 2021; Iwanaga et al., 2024). Findings from the Bezyak et al. (2024) focus group study were used to develop an online training course by the Rocky Mountain ADA Center, which invites HR professionals to consider personal biases toward people with disabilities and implement strategies to address personal biases and those situated in policies and practices of the organization (https://rockymountainada.org/services/training).

Conclusion

People with disabilities are one the most discriminated groups in the United States, and this discrimination significantly impacts their ability to find and maintain gainful employment. Decades of research stress the negative impacts of employer bias on people with disabilities. This article shared lessons learned from many years of research on discrimination and disability-employment. The following domains were reviewed: 1) stigmatizing attitudes of employers, 2) disability employment legislation, 3) characteristics of companies that promote disability-employment, 4) disability inclusion policies and practices, and 5) implicit bias and disability inclusion training for human resource (HR) professionals. Training employers and HR professionals on these domains will increase awareness of implicit and explicit bias toward people with disabilities in the workplace and allow employers to more effectively develop effective disability inclusion policies and practices.

Footnotes

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The content of this article was developed under a Rocky Mountain ADA Center grant from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR grant number #90DPAD0014). NIDILRR is a Center within the Administration for Community Living (ACL), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Accenture (2023). Companies that lead in disability inclusion outperform peers financially. https://newsroom.accenture.com/news/2023/companies-that-lead-in-disability-inclusion-outperform-peers-financially-reveals-new-research-from-accenture

Amir

Strauser

D. R.

Chan

(2009). Employers’ and survivors’ perspectives. In Feuerstein

(Ed.), Work and cancer survivors (pp. 73–89). Springer Publishing.

Antonak

R. F.

Livneh

(1995). Development, psychometric analysis, and validation of an error-choice test to measure attitudes toward persons with epilepsy. Rehabilitation Psychology, 40(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.40.1.25

Antonopoulos

C. R.

Sugden

Saliba

(2023). Implicit bias toward people with disability: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Rehabilitation Psychology, 68(2), 121–134.

Bezyak

Moser

Chan

Iwanaga

(2020a). Predictors of automatic preference for people without disabilities over people with disabilities: A chi-squared automatic interaction detector analysis. Rehabilitation Research, Policy and Education, 34(3), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1891/RE-20-15

Bezyak

Moser

Iwanaga

J. R.

Chen

Chan

(2020b). Disability inclusion strategies: An exploratory study. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 53, 183–188. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-201095

Bezyak

Versen

Chan

Lee

J. R.

Iwanaga

Rumrill

Chen

(2024). Needs of human resource professionals in implicit bias and disability inclusion training: A focus group study. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation. https://doi.org:10.3233/JVR-240015

Chan

Iwanaga

Tansey

T. N.

Ditchman

Wehman

J. R.

Chen

(2024). Assessing evidence-based disability inclusion policies and employment of people with disabilities in the workplace: Scale development and validation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00343552241268757

Chan

Strauser

Maher

Lee

E. J.

Jones

Johnson

E. T.

(2010). Demand-side factors related to employment of people with disabilities: A survey of employers in the Midwest region of the United States. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 4, 412–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-010-9252-6

10.

Chan

Tansey

Iwanaga

Bezyak

Wehman

Phillips

Strauser

Anderson

(2021). Company characteristics, disability inclusion practices, and employment of people with disabilities in the post COVID-19 job economy: A cross sectional survey study. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 31, 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09941-8

11.

Dolce

J. N.

Bates

F. M.

(2018). Hiring and employing individuals with psychiatric disabilities: Focus groups with HR professionals. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 50(1), 85–93. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-180990

12.

Domzal

Houtenville

Sharma

(2008). Survey of employer perspectives on the employment of people with disabilities: Technical report. Office of Disability Employment Policy, U. S. Department of Labor. https://www.dol.gov/odep/research/SurveyEmployerPerspectivesEmploymentPeopleDisabilities.pdf

13.

Dovidio

J. F.

Pagotta

Hebl

M. R.

(2011). Implicit attitudes and discrimination against people with physical disabilities. In Wiener

R. L.

Willborn

S. L.

(Eds.), Disability and aging discrimination: Perspectives in law and psychology (pp. 157–183). Springer.

14.

European Commission (2021). Union of equality: Strategy for the rights of persons with disabilities 2021-2030. https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1484&langId=en

15.

Florence

Marc

(2021). Implicit and explicit attitudes of employers toward hiring people who have experienced depression. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 31(4), 903–915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-021-09977-4

16.

Fraser

R. T.

Ajzen

Johnson

Hebert

Chan

(2011). Understanding employers’ hiring intention in relation to qualified workers with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 35, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-2011-0548

17.

Gilbride

Stensrud

Vandergoot

Golden

(2003). Identification of the characteristics of work environments and employers open to hiring and accommodating people with disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 46(3), 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355 2030460030101

18.

Greenwald

A. G.

Banaji

M. R.

(1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4

19.

Greenwald

A. G.

Banaji

M. R.

Rudman

L. A.

Farnham

S. D.

Nosek

B. A.

Mellott

D. S.

(2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review, 109(1), 3–25. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.3

20.

Grizzard

(2005). Meeting demand-side expectations and needs. Paper presented at the ADA 15th Anniversary Seminar, Washington, DC.

21.

Habeck

Hunt

Rachel

C. H.

Kregel

Chan

(2010). Employee retention and integrated disability management practices as demand side factors. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(4), 443–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-009-9225-9

22.

Hernandez

Keys

Balcazar

(2000). Employer attitudes toward workers with disabilities and their ADA employment rights: A literature review. Journal of Rehabilitation, 66(4), 4–16.

23.

Herson

(2021). Seven reasons why hiring people with disabilities is good for business. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2021/12/03/seven-reasons-why-hiring-people-with-disabilities-is-good-for-business/

24.

Iwanaga

Chan

Bezyak

J. R.

Lee

Rumrill

West

A. E.

Zapata

Tansey

T. N.

Wehman

(2024). Fortune 500 companies and employment of people with disabilities: The intermediary role of disability inclusion policies and practices. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-240026

25.

Iwanaga

Chan

Ditchman

Tansey

(2021). Assessing workplace culture and disability inclusion climate: A preliminary study. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 52(1), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1891/JARC-D-20-00001

26.

Kaye

H. S.

Jans

L. H.

Jones

E. C.

(2011). Why don’t employers hire and retain workers with disabilities? Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(4), 526–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-011-9302-8

27.

Kelley

H. H.

(1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In Levine

(Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192–240). University of Nebraska Press.

28.

Kessler Foundation (2024). National Trends in Disability Employment (nTIDE) April 2024 jobs Report. https://kesslerfoundation.org/press-release/ntide-april-2024-jobs-report-post-pandemic-gains-seen-employment-people-disabilities#:∼:text=%2C%E2%80%9D%20he%20added.-,The%20employment%2Dto%2Dpopulation%20ratio%20for%20people%20with%20disabilities%20(,percent%20or%202.3%20percentage%20points )

29.

McDonnall

M. C.

Antonelli

(2019). A second look at factors associated with employer hiring behavior regarding people who are blind or have low vision. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 113(6), 538–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X19887642

30.

McKee-Ryan

Song

Wanberg

Kinicki

(2005). Psychological and physical well-being during unemployment: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 53–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.53

31.

Paul

K. I.

Moser

(2009). Unemployment impairs mental health: Meta-analyses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 264–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.01.001

32.

Pruett

S. R.

Chan

(2006). The development and psychometric validation of the disability attitude implicit association test. Rehabilitation Psychology, 51(3), 202–213. https://doi.org/10.1037/0090-5550.51.3.202

33.

Schloemer-Jarvis

Bader

Bohm

(2022). The role of human resource practices for including persons with disabilities in the workforce: A systematic review of the literature. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 33(1), 45–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2021.1996433

34.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (n.d.). Article 27: Work and employment. https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/article-27-work-and-employment.html

35.

U.S. Department of Labor (2014). Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/section-503/law