The workplace discrimination experiences of middle-age and younger adult workers with disabilities: Results from the National EEOC ADA Research Project

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the employment discrimination experiences of middle-aged workers with disabilities.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the employment discrimination experiences of middle-age charging parties with disabilities (ages 35–54 years) in comparison to younger adult charging parties with disabilities (ages 25–34 years) on demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, disability type), characteristics of employers against whom allegations were filed (e.g., size, industry type), the nature of the discrimination, and the resolution of these allegations.

METHODS: The study utilized data from the Integrated Mission System of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

RESULTS: Findings indicated that, compared to younger adult charging parties, middle-age charging parties were more likely to be male and Caucasian; more likely to file allegations on the basis of diabetes, heart/cardiovascular disease, back impairments, and cancer; and less likely to file allegations on the basis of anxiety disorders, manic depressive disorder, schizophrenia, or other psychological impairments. Middle-age charging parties were less likely than younger charging parties to allege discrimination related to unlawful discharge and constructive discharge, but more likely to allege discrimination related to layoff. They were less likely to allege discrimination against small employers and employers in the finance/insurance, accommodation/food service, and retail trade industries. Middle-age charging parties were more likely to allege discrimination against employers in the manufacturing, transportation and warehousing, utilities, educational services, and public administration industries. Middle-age charging parties were slightly less likely than younger adult charging parties to have ADA title I allegations resolved in their favor through the EEOC’s investigatory process.

CONCLUSIONS: Implications for working with prime age workers with disabilities are discussed.

Keywords

Workplace discrimination middle-age workers with disabilities younger adult workers with disabilities equal employment opportunity commission

1 Introduction

With employment rates lagging stubbornly at around 30 percent for the past several decades (National Council on Disability, 2014), working-age people with disabilities comprise a vulnerable and often disenfranchised segment of the American labor force (Rumrill & Koch, 2014). Commonly reported barriers to employment for people with disabilities include lack of access to assistive technology and on-the-job accommodations (Job Accommodation Network, 2014), disincentives in long-term disability insurance and Social Security disability programs (Marini, 2003), social stigma and negative attitudes toward people with disabilities on the part of employers (Smart, 2009), limited opportunities for job training and education after high school (Wehman, 2013), and workplace discrimination (McMahon, 2013).

Two especially vulnerable segments of the American disability community when it comes to employment are younger workers (i.e., ages 16–24) and older workers (ages 55 and over) who have impairments that limit their vocational options and outcomes (Wehman, 2013; Wickert, Dresden, & Rumrill, 2013). Youth with disabilities face significant employment obstacles related to limited pre-vocational and career preparatory experiences, overprotective parenting, lower rates of enrollment in higher education programs after high school, limited access to transportation, and a limited range of employment opportunities given their entry-level skills (Strauser, 2013). Older workers with disabilities are dealing with the physical and psychological effects of aging, and they may encounter employment obstacles such as fears on the part of employers concerning workers compensation and health insurance costs, difficulties staying current with emerging technology and equipment used on the job, and double discrimination based on both age and disability (Wickert et al., 2013).

Less is known about the specific employment experiences of young adult and middle-age workers with disabilities (the prime working age population), although reports indicate that they fare little better than their younger or older counterparts in terms of employment rates or earnings (National Council on Disability, 2014). Workers in their 20s, 30s, and 40s who incur mid-career disabilities such as multiple sclerosis, diabetes, mental illness, and orthopedic injuries from industrial accidents experience significant difficulties in their efforts to retain or return to employment following the onset of disability (Nissen & Rumrill, 2014; Strauser, 2013). Compounding the situation for mid-career workers with (and without) disabilities is the sociological phenomenon whereby middle-aged people often find themselves ‘sandwiched’ between generations of younger and older family members who require care and supervision (Wickert et al., 2013). These caregiving responsibilities can have devastating effects on the ability of the “Sandwich Generation” to maintain employment, and this is especially so for women who provide the majority of childcare and eldercare in contemporary American society.

Studies repeatedly attribute workplace discrimination to the poor employment outcomes reported by mid-career workers with disabilities, but no studies in the extant literature could be found that specify the types of discrimination that middle-age workers with disabilities encounter or the outcomes of their efforts to redress disability-related discrimination in the workplace. Although both young adults and middle-aged adults are classified within the prime working age group, the workplace discrimination experiences of young adult and middle-aged workers may still vary due to differences between the two age groups in their social roles and stages of career development (Super, 1980). Therefore, the two objectives of this study were: 1) to describe the employment discrimination experiences of middle-age workers with disabilities and 2) to compare the discrimination experiences of middle-age workers with disabilities to the experiences of younger adult workers with disabilities. Specifically, the current study addressed the following research questions:

RQ1. Do the employment discrimination experiences of middle-age workers with disabilities differ from those of younger adult workers with disabilities with respect to the demographic characteristics of charging parties who file allegations with the EEOC (i.e., gender, race/ethnicity, and type of disability)?

RQ2. Do the employment discrimination experiences of middle-age workers with disabilities differ from those of younger adult workers with disabilities with respect to the nature of the discrimination alleged to occur (i.e., issues such as hiring, firing, disability harassment, etc.)?

RQ3. Do the employment discrimination experiences of middle-age workers with disabilities differ from those of younger adult workers with disabilities with respect to respondent characteristics, including industry designation, size, and location of Employers against whom EEOC allegations are filed?

RQ4. Do the employment discrimination experiences of middle-age workers with disabilities differ from those of younger adult workers with disabilities with respect to the legal outcomes or Resolutions of the EEOC investigatory process? These Resolutions may be determined to be in favor of the Charging Party (i.e., “With Merit;” discrimination did occur) or in favor of the Employer (i.e., “Without Merit;” discrimination did not occur).

2 Method

2.1 Data source

This study utilized the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) database, which is used to track the filing, investigation, and resolution of workplace discrimination allegations under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (McMahon et al., 2005). This database is maintained by the EEOC in its Integrated Mission System (IMS), which includes safeguards to maintain confidentiality and protect the identities of the charging parties and respondent employers. All identifying information for charging parties has been removed except for information on age, gender, race/ethnicity, and disability status. For respondent employers, the only information available is the North American Industrial Classification Standard (NAICS code), number of employees, and location (U.S. Department of Education regional boundaries).

The unit of analysis in the database is an allegation (not a person, charging party, or employer). Only unique allegations that do not involve recording errors or duplications are included in the study dataset. All allegations are limited to those brought under Title I of the ADA due to the wide state-to-state variations in state anti-discrimination statutes based on disability. Allegations that are still being investigated are also excluded.

Further, the current analyses only include allegations filed by those charging parties who were at least 25 years of age but younger than 55 years of age at the time that the allegation was filed with the EEOC. The final analytic dataset for this study included 59,828 allegations of employment discrimination under ADA Title I that were received, investigated, and closed by the EEOC between January 1, 2009 (the day that the ADA Amendments Act took effect) and December 31, 2011.

These allegations were divided into groups on the basis of the age of charging parties including: 1) middle-age workers aged 35 to 54 (n = 47,342) and younger adult workers aged 25 to 34 (n = 12,486). As previously noted, the study-specific database included only those allegations that were received, investigated, and ultimately closed by the EEOC between 2009 and 2011. This time frame represents the time after the ADA Amendments Act was effectuated, a legislative action that substantially expanded the anti-discrimination protections available to American workers with disabilities (Toriello, Bishop, & Rumrill, 2012). Therefore, this study examines the current discrimination experiences of middle-age workers with disabilities, both in absolute terms and in comparison to the workplace discrimination experiences of younger adult workers with disabilities.

2.2 Variables in the EEOC database

2.2.1 Characteristics of the charging party

As stated above, the characteristics of the charging party include gender (female/male), race/ethnicity (Caucasian, African American, Hispanic/Mexican, Asian, and Other), and disability type (39 impairments within the following categories: physical, behavioral, neurological, and sensory impairments). For purposes of this study, the charging party characteristic of age was used as a grouping or independent variable.

2.2.2 Characteristics of the respondent

The characteristics of Respondent employers include the location/region (New England, Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Midwest, Southwest, Great Plains, Rocky Mountains, Pacific, and Northwest), the industry designation or NAICS code, and the number of employees (ranges from 15 to over 500).

2.2.3 Issues

All charges involve some allegation of an adverse action by employers, and these are known as “issues.” The database includes more than 40 specific employment decisions upon which an ADA Title I allegation can be based. This study mainly focused on 24 types of discrimination identified by the EEOC between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011 that are related to job acquisition (i.e., qualifications standards, prohibited medical inquiry, testing, hiring, training, and reasonable accommodation), work conditions (i.e., wages, benefits, job classification, assignment, segregated facilities, demotion, promotion, discipline, suspension, intimidation, harassment, and terms/conditions), and job retention (i.e., discharge, constructive discharge, involuntary retirement, layoff, recall, and reinstatement).

2.2.4 Resolution

This refers to the final EEOC determination as to whether or not discrimination actually occurred. Resolutions are classified as Merit, favoring the charging party (a determination that discrimination did occur) or Non-Merit, favoring the respondent employer (a determination that discrimination did not occur).

2.3 Data analysis

To describe the characteristics of charging parties and respondent employers, the researchers used descriptive statistics such as frequencies and percentages. The group differences between middle-age workers and younger workers were investigated using tests of proportions (a non-parametric technique), and group differences were examined on gender, race, and disability type of the charging party; industry designation, location, and size of respondent employers; allegation issues; and resolution status. All analyses were conducted using the statistical computer package STATA 12 (2013). The level of significance was set conservatively at 0.001 in this study to offset the effects of multiple comparisons.

3 Results

3.1 Characteristics of charging parties

The first research question concerned the demographic characteristics of ADA Title I charging parties who were aged 35 to 54 years and how they differed from the demographic characteristics of charging parties who were aged 25 to 34 years. The three demographic characteristics considered in this investigation were gender, race/ethnicity, and disability type. The differences in these characteristics between the two charging party groups are presented in Table 1.

A total of 47,342 allegations were filed by middle-age charging parties during the three-year (2009–2011) observation period, of which 54.6% were filed by women, 57.9% were filed by Caucasians, 27.4% were filed by African Americans, 11.0% were filed by Hispanic or Mexican charging parties, and 1.5% were initiated by charging parties of Asian lineage. The five disability types that were most frequently reported in allegations filed by middle-age charging parties were back impairment (8.1%), nonparalytic orthopedic impairment (6.8%), depression (6.7%), anxiety disorder (4.7%), and diabetes (4.4%). Of the 12,486 allegations filed by younger adult workers during the same time period, 57.0% were filed by women, 55.2% were initiated by Caucasians, 28.9% by African Americans, 11.5% by Hispanic or Mexican charging parties, and 1.7% by charging parties of Asian descent. The five disability types that were most frequently reported in allegations filed by younger adult charging parties were depression (6.7%), anxiety disorder (6.5%), back impairment (6.3%), bipolar disorder (5.5%), and nonparalytic orthopedic impairment (5.1%).

Relative to the group of allegations filed by younger workers, proportionally more allegations in the middle-age group were filed by charging parties who were Caucasian (Z = 5.51, p < 0.001) and who had back impairment (Z = 6.80, p < 0.001), nonparalytic orthopedic impairment (Z = 6.60, p < 0.001), diabetes (Z = 9.39, p < 0.001), heart/cardiovascular impairment (Z = 11.55, p < 0.001), cancer (Z = 7.62, p < 0.001), and respiratory or pulmonary impairment (Z = 4.49, p < 0.001). Proportionally fewer allegations were filed by middle-age charging parties who were female (Z = –4.68, p < 0.001) and who were dealing with anxiety disorders (Z = –8.42, p < 0.001), manic depressive disorder (Z = –10.91, p < 0.001), learning disability (Z = –11.94, p < 0.001), epilepsy (Z = –11.26, p < 0.001), HIV/AIDS (Z = –5.63, p <0.001), schizophrenia (Z = –6.40, p < 0.001), cerebral palsy (Z = –7.45, p < 0.001), autism (Z = –5.05, p < 0.001), and other psychological impairment (Z = –5.26, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the two age groups in the proportions of allegations involving African Americans, Hispanics/Mexicans, and Asians.

3.2 Differences in discrimination issues

The second research question involved the specific issues or discriminatory actions alleged by middle-age workers with disabilities, in comparison to the issues alleged by younger adult workers with disabilities. Descriptive statistics for discrimination issues with respect to job acquisition, working conditions, and job retention are displayed for the two groups in Table 2. In both groups, the five discrimination issues most often filed by Charging Parties were discharge (32.1% and 34.4% for middle-age and younger charging parties, respectively), reasonable accommodation (18.0% and 18.3%), terms/conditions of employment (10.5% and 9.8%), harassment (9.5% and 8.9%), and discipline (6.8% and 7.1%). Relative to the group of allegations filed by younger charging parties, proportionally fewer allegations filed by middle-age charging parties were related to discharge (i.e., terminating one’s employment on a permanent basis; Z = –5.02, p < 0.001) and constructive discharge (i.e., creating a work environment that forces the person with a disability to quit; Z = –3.65, p < 0.001), but proportionally more allegations filed by middle-age charging parties were related to layoff (Z = 6.14, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in proportions between the two groups on any other allegation issues.

3.3 Characteristics of respondent employers

The third research question investigated differences between the two groups in terms of characteristics of respondents (i.e., employers). The proportions of allegations across the two groups related to the size and location of employers against whom allegations were filed are presented in Table 3. Allegations filed by middle-age charging parties were most frequently leveled against Employers with 501 or more employees (50.7%), followed in descending order of frequency by Employers with 15–100 employees (25.9%), 201–500 employees (14.2%), and 101–200 employees (9.2%). Similarly, allegations filed by younger adult charging parties most often targeted Employers with 501 or more employees (49.5%), followed in descending order of frequency by Employers with 15–100 employees (28.4%), 201–500 employees (13.8%), and 101–200 employees (8.3%). With regard to the location of Employers, charging parties in both groups most often filed allegations against Employers in the Southeast (25.4% of allegations filed by middle-age workers and 25.9% of those filed by younger workers) and least often filed allegations against Employers in New England (1.2% for both groups). Compared to the group of allegations filed by younger workers, proportionally fewer allegations filed by middle-age charging parties cited Employers with 15–100 employees (Z = –5.63, p < 0.001) and Employers in the Southwest (Z = –4.17, p < 0.001) and Rocky Mountain (Z = –3.60, p < 0.001) regions; proportionally more allegations filed by middle-age charging parties involved Employers in the Mid Atlantic region (Z = 4.68, p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant between-group differences in the proportions of allegations filed against Employers with more than 100 employees.

Represented by frequencies and proportions, the distributions of employer industry designations across the two allegation groups are presented in Table 4. Middle-age charging parties most often filed allegations against Employers in the manufacturing industry (14.4%), followed in descending order of frequency by Employers in retail trades (12.5%), educational services (12.4%), health care and social assistance (10.4%), and public administration (8.7%). For their part, younger charging parties most often filed allegations against Employers in retail trades (14.2%), followed in descending order of frequency by Employers in health care and social assistance (11.3%), educational services (10.9%), manufacturing (10.5%), and accommodation and food services (8.2%).

Compared to allegations filed by younger workers, allegations filed by middle-age workers were proportionally more likely to cite Employers in manufacturing (Z = 11.46, p < 0.001), educational services (Z = 4.51, p < 0.001), public administration (Z = 8.86, p < 0.001), transportation and warehousing (Z = 6.43, p < 0.001), utilities (Z = 3.57, p < 0.001), and other services (Z = 3.63, p < 0.001); proportionally less likely to cite Employers in retail trades (Z = –5.14, p < 0.001), finance and insurance (Z = –10.67, p < 0.05), accommodation and food services (Z = –14.49, p < 0.01), and professional, scientific, and technical field (Z = –3.84, p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences in proportions between the two groups were observed for other employer industry designations.

3.4 Differences in case resolutions

The final research question involved case resolution patterns in ADA Title I allegations filed by middle-age and younger adult workers. All case resolutions were grouped into two categories, merit resolutions and non-merit resolutions. Merit resolutions include allegations that were withdrawn with benefits to the Charging Party, settled with benefits to the Charging Party, resolved in successful conciliations, and resolved via conciliation failures. Non-merit resolutions include those that resulted in a finding of no cause for the allegation and all administrative closures. Descriptive statistics for merit and non-merit resolutions across the two groups are displayed in Table 5. Compared to the group of younger workers, proportionally fewer allegations in the group of middle-age workers resulted in merit resolutions for the charging party (Z = –5.01, p < 0.001).

4 Discussion

This study provides evidence that the workplace discrimination experiences of younger adult and middle-age workers with disabilities are more similar than different with respect to characteristics of charging parties (research question 1), the issues alleged to have occurred (research question 2), employer characteristics (research question 3), and resolutions of the EEOC’s investigatory process. The few age-based between-group differences that were revealed require closer examination, but it is important to keep in mind that most workplace discrimination experiences and outcomes considered in this study are shared by workers with disabilities between the ages of 25 and 54.

4.1 Characteristics of charging parties

Middle-age charging parties were slightly but significantly more likely to be male and Caucasian than were younger adult charging parties, and the converse holds that younger adult charging parties were more likely to be female and of minority heritage. This finding may reflect the long-observed phenomenon whereby women and minorities with disabilities tend to leave the workforce at higher rates and at younger ages than their male and Caucasian counterparts (Hennesey et al., 2008; National Council on Disability, 2014; O’Reilly, 2007; UNIFEM, 2008). By the time these doubly-disadvantaged workers reach middle age, they are not in the work force in the same proportions as males and Caucasians with disabilities; hence, middle-aged males and Caucasians with disabilities experience more workplace discrimination simply because their employment rate ishigher.

The finding that anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia were less common among middle-age charging parties than among younger adults is most likely a function of the prevalence and age of onset for these conditions. Both anxiety and bipolar disorder, as well as schizophrenia are likely to occur for the first time in young adulthood (Andrade et al., 2005; Kessler, Walters, & Wittchen, 2004; Mueser & McGurk, 2004), such that middle-age charging parties may be less likely than their younger counterparts to be experiencing these mental health conditions. The underrepresentation of allegations related to mental health conditions may be especially true for workers older than those examined in this study; Cichy et al. (2015) found that ADA Title I charging parties over the age of 55 were less likely than younger adult and middle-age charging parties to report depression, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia as their ADA-qualifying disabilities.

It is also not surprising that middle aged charging parties were more likely to experience disabling conditions such as back impairments, non-paralytic orthopedic impairments, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer than were younger charging parties. The fact is that these conditions all increase in incidence as a function of age, and middle age often marks the onset of chronic health conditions that have a significant impact on one’s work productivity (Rubin, Roessler, & Rumrill, 2015).

Certainly, the between-group differences in charging party characteristics warrant tailored interventions for young adult workers with disabilities who are female, who represent racial and ethnic minority groups, and who are dealing with mental illness. As these individuals navigate the critically important stage of vocational development known as career establishment (Hartung, 2013; Super, 1980), they could benefit from training and technical assistance regarding (a) the provisions of the ADA Amendments Act, (b) strategies for disclosing one’s disability status to employers, and (c) procedures for addressing disability-related workplace issues with employers before filing a formal ADA title I allegation (Job Accommodation Network, 2014; Roessler & Rumrill, 2014). The same goes for middle-aged workers who are dealing with back impairments, non-paralytic orthopedic impairments, diabetes, cancer, and other conditions that are more common in middle age than they are in early adulthood.

It may also be the case that there are proportionally fewer middle-age workers with cerebral palsy and HIV/AIDS who are still able to actively participate in the workforce, given that the life expectancies for people with these disorders are shortened (Smart, 2009). This could result in the overrepresentation of these disabilities among the younger adult charging parties in this study. The present findings also indicate that younger adult charging parties were proportionally more likely than their middle-age counterparts to have learning disabilities and autism. This may result from the improvement of diagnostic tools and development of research on these conditions, which has led to more frequent diagnoses of these disorders in recent years (Koch, Conyers, & Rumrill, 2012).

4.2 Allegation issues

Perhaps the most compelling finding related to discrimination issues is not a between-group difference but, rather, the fact that approximately half of the allegations filed by younger adult and middle-age charging parties involved either discharge or reasonable accommodations. This finding has held in numerous EEOC investigations over the years (Cichy et al., 2015; McMahon et al., 2005), and it behooves rehabilitation professionals who provide ADA consultation to employers and people with disabilities to focus their efforts on procedures for preventing unlawful discharge and for implementing reasonable accommodations that enable qualified adult workers with disabilities to retain employment (Chapin, 2012; McMahon et al., 2005). This focus on job retention represents a departure from early ADA training and consultation priorities, which focused primarily on job acquisition issues such as interviewing and hiring even though these issues have always represented a small proportion of ADA Title I allegations filed with the EEOC (Rubin & Roessler, 2008; Strauser, 2013).

The between-group differences related to allegation issues in this study revealed that middle-age charging parties were less likely to allege discrimination related to unlawful discharge and constructive discharge than were younger adult charging parties. This finding may reflect the level of career development for middle-age charging parties, who are likely to have reached the career maintenance stage (Super, 1980). At this stage in their employment, the majority of middle-aged employees are able to hold their own in their positions, especially considering the career maturity, reliability, leadership, productivity, and experience that middle-aged as well as older employees bring to the workplace (Magd, 2003; O’Reilly & Caro, 1994; Perrin, 2005). For these reasons, middle-age charging parties in this investigation may have been less likely to experience discharge, unlawful or otherwise, because they had fewer performance problems than their younger and less experienced counterparts. It should be noted that the likelihood of unlawful discharge allegations seems to decrease as a linear function of age. Cichy et al. (2015) found ADA title I charging parties over the age of 55 less likely than either middle-age or young adult charging parties to file discharge-related complaints with the EEOC.

Our findings also show that middle-age charging parties were more likely than younger adult charging parties to allege discrimination related to layoff. Previous research has reported that employees become more vulnerable to layoffs as their age increases, and that older employees tend to be the first group to be laid off and the last to be offered career advancement opportunities (Bendick & Brown, 1999; Goldman et al., 2006; Lahey, 2005; Neumark, 2003). Other studies have suggested that older employees with disabilities may be doubly disadvantaged by their age and disability status (Beale, 1970; Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). This study seems to provide some evidence that double disadvantages of age and disability may begin to emerge during middle adulthood.

4.3 Characteristics of respondent employers

Looking across age groups, more than half of all allegations considered in this study, were filed against employers with more than 500 employees. This finding is consistent with prior ADA title I research (Cichy et al., 2015; McMahon et al., 2005; Rumrill et al., 2005), and it likely reflects the fact that larger Employers hire more employees, including more employees with disabilities (Rubin & Roessler, 2008). Also, as Cichy et al. (2015) noted, larger employers may implement more policies and practices that inform employees about their rights, policies and practices that pertain equally to workers with disabilities regardless of age. Still, findings did indicate that, compared to allegations filed by younger charging parties, fewer allegations filed by middle-age charging parties cited employers with 15–100 employees. This suggests that middle-age charging parties’ longer tenure and their stronger occupational bond with their employers (Hartung, 2013) in these smaller settings may either mitigate the likelihood of discrimination occurring or reduce the likelihood of discrimination being reported if it does occur.

Also across age groups, and also consistent with previous research, the greatest number of allegations were filed against Employers in the Southeast region of the United States and the fewest charges were filed against Employers in New England. This may reflect regional differences in employee rights legislation, workers compensation policies, and the involvement of labor unions to protect the rights of workers.

With respect to employer industry, middle-age charging parties were significantly less likely than younger adult charging parties to allege discrimination against employers in the finance/insurance, accommodation/food services industries, and retail trades – and more likely to file allegations against employers in manufacturing, transportation and warehousing, utilities, educational services, and public administration. Several observations are pertinent to these findings. First, employers in the accommodation and food services and retail trade industries hire large numbers of younger workers to perform entry-level, low-skill jobs (Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2008). Second, many supported employment programs aimed at integrating youth and young adults with disabilities into community work settings target hotels and restaurants as employers (Wehman, 2013). The first two observations mean that higher proportions of young adult workers with disabilities are employed in young adult density settings, and they may be subject to a higher incidence of discrimination because of their relatively high representation in that industry.

The third pertinent observation is that middle-age workers in manufacturing, transportation and warehousing, and utilities may experience age-related difficulties meeting the often physically demanding nature of work in these industries (Dunn, 2001), and they may find employers unwilling or unable to accommodate their limitations, hence a higher proportion of allegations against their employers than is observed among younger adult workers. The last observation is that middle-age workers with disabilities in the educational services industry and the public administration field may be able to remain in the workforce long enough so that the double disadvantages of their disability and increased age starts to have an impact on their experiences at work. These findings further suggest that these industries may require a more aggressive remedial or enforcement approach to ADA implementation, especially as it applies to mid-career workers who experience age-related limitations to their ability to perform physical job duties. This could be achieved through customized supervisory and management training programs on the ADA that focus on the experiences of middle-age workers with disabilities in these industries. However, caution must be exercised in interpreting these employer industry findings because of the high levels of missing data for this variable.

4.4 Merit resolution rates

The present findings revealed that middle-age charging parties with disabilities were less likely than younger adult charging parties with disabilities to obtain resolutions with merit. However, it seems premature to conclude that there were age biases in the EEOC investigatory process, because several other factors may play a role in this finding. First, younger adult charging parties were more likely to allege discrimination on issues of unlawful discharge and constructive discharge. ADA violations of these kinds are often blatant and have severe consequences for the worker, so he or she may find it easier to demonstrate that discrimination did occur. Second, younger adult charging parties who filed allegations were more likely to work in the industries of finance and insurance, professional, scientific and technical, information, health care and social assistance, accommodation and food service, and retail trades. These industries may require them to have additional education and training than those of manufacturing, utilities, construction, and transportation and warehousing, which in turn may equip younger adult charging parties with better knowledge about their rights and procedures for invoking them. Third, younger adult charging parties were more likely to work for employers with fewer than 100 employees than their middle-age counterparts. Because studies comparing large and small businesses have repeatedly reported that smaller employers are less likely than larger employers to provide accommodations and participate in various ADA compliance activities (Bruyere et al., 2006), it may be the case that younger adult charging parties with disabilities in smaller employment settings have an increased chance to prevail in EEOC case resolutions. Still, the fact that only a quarter of the allegations considered in this study resulted in merit resolutions for both age groups, even after the effectuation of the ADA Amendments Act, indicates a strong need for people with disabilities of all ages to have accurate information regarding what does and does not constitute workplace discrimination under the law (Cichy et al., 2015; Nissen & Rumrill, 2014).

5 Conclusion

Results of this investigation reveal a mix of similarities and differences in the workplace discrimination experiences of middle age and younger adult workers with disabilities. The few between-group differences that did exist indicate that, compared to allegations filed by younger workers with disabilities, allegations filed by middle-age workers were more likely to be initiated by males and Caucasians; less likely to be initiated by those dealing with anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or other psychological impairments; less likely to involve unlawful discharge or constructive discharge; less likely to be leveled against smaller employers and those in the finance/insurance, accommodation/food services, and retail trade industries; more likely to involve layoff; and more likely to be leveled against employers in the industries of manufacturing, transportation and warehousing, utilities, educational services, and public administration. There were no significant age differences in the vast majority of disability types, the types of discrimination alleged, or the location of Employers against whom allegations were filed. Proportionally, there were slight age differences in the rate of merit resolutions. Regardless of age, more allegations were filed against Employers with 500 or more employees, who both employ more workers with disabilities (on a proportional basis) and are more active in educating employees about their rights.

Taken in aggregate, these findings provide important insights into the workplace discrimination experiences of middle-age and younger adult workers with disabilities. Rehabilitation professionals working with prime-age workers with disabilities must incorporate accessible and understandable information about the provisions of the ADA Amendments Act into their vocational planning efforts as a means of reducing the incidence and impact of workplace discrimination against this large group of workers.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to report.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Appreciation is extended to Dr. Ronald Edwards of the EEOC for his technical guidance in reviewing these findings.

References

Andrade

, Caraveo-Anduga

J. J.

, Berglund

, Biji

R. V.

, DeGraff

, Volebergh

, ... Wittchen

(2003). The epidemiology of major depressive episodes: Results from the International Consortium of Psychiatric Epidemiology (ICPE) Surveys. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 12, 3–21.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008). Older workers: Are there more older people in the workplace? United States Department of Labor. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2008/older_workers/

Bruyere

S. M.

, Erickson

W. A.

, & Van Looy

S. A.

(2006). The impact of business size on employer ADA response. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 49, 194–206.

Chapin

(2012). The role of participation of people with disabilities in the new American workplace. In Toriello

P. J.

, Bishop

M. L.

, & Rumrill

P. D.

(Eds.), New directions in rehabilitation counseling: Creative responses to professional, clinical, and educational challenges (pp. 236–254). Linn Creek, MO: Aspen Professional Services.

Cichy

K. E.

, Li

, McMahon

B. T.

, & Rumrill

P. D.

(2015). The workplace discrimination experiences of older workers with disabilities: Results from the National EEOC ADA Research Project. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 43(2), 137–148.

Dunn

(2001). Trends and issues in proprietary rehabilitation. In Rumrill

, Bellini

, & Koch

(Eds.), Emerging issues in rehabilitation counseling: Perspectives on the new millennium (pp. 173–202). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Hartung

(2013). The life-span, life-space theory of careers. In Brown

, & Lent

(Eds.), Career development and counseling (2nd ed., pp. 83–114). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Hennessey

, Rumrill

, Fitzgerald

, & Roessler

(2008). Disadvantagement-related correlates of career optimism among college and university students with disabilities. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment, and Rehabilitation, 30(4), 483–492.

Job Accommodation Network (2014). Workplace accommodations: Low cost, high impact. Retrieved October 31, 2014 from http://AskJAN.org/media/lowcosthighimpact.html

10.

Kessler

R. C.

, Walters

E. E.

, & Wittchen

(2004). Epidemiology. In Heimberg

R. G.

, Turk

C. L.

, & Mennin

D. S.

(Eds.), Generalized anxiety disorder: Advances in research and practice (pp. 29–50). New York, NY: Guilford.

11.

Koch

, Conyers

, & Rumrill

P. D.

(2012). The nature and needs of people with emerging disabilities. In Toriello

P. J.

, Bishop

M. L.

, & Rumrill

P. D.

(Eds.), New directions in rehabilitation counseling: Creative responses to professional, clinical, and educational challenges (pp. 115–139). Linn Creek, MO: Aspen Professional Services.

12.

Magd

(2003). Management attitudes and perceptions of older employees in hospitality management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 15(7), 393–401.

13.

Marini

(2003). What rehabilitation counselors should know to assist Social Security beneficiaries in becoming employed. Work: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment, and Rehabilitation, 21(1), 37–44.

14.

McMahon

(2013), ADA EEOC codebook. Richmond, VA: Author.

15.

McMahon

B. T.

, Edwards

, Rumrill

P. D.

, & Hursh

(2005). An overview of the National EEOC ADA Research Project. Work, 25, 1–7.

16.

Mueser

K. T.

, & McGurk

S. R.

(2004). Schizophrenia. Lancet, 363, 2063–2072.

17.

National Council on Disability (2014). The Rehabilitation Act: Outcomes for transition-age youth. Retrieved from http://www.ncd.gov

18.

Nissen

, & Rumrill

(2014). Employment and career development considerations. In Giesser

(Ed.), Primer on multiple sclerosis (2nd ed., pp. 362–391). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

19.

O’Reilly

(2007). The right to decent work of persons with disabilities. International Labor Office (ILO), Geneva.

20.

O’Reilly

, & Caro

F. G.

(1994). Productive aging: An overview of the literature. Journal of Aging and Social Policy, 6(3), 39–71.

21.

Perrin

(2005), The Business Case for Workers Age 50+: Planning for Tomorrow’s Talent Needs in Today’s Competitive Environment. Washington, DC: AARP.

22.

Roessler

, & Rumrill

(2014). Enhancing productivity on your job: The win-win approach to reasonable accommodations. New York, NY: National Multiple Sclerosis Society.

23.

Rubin

, & Roessler

(2008). Foundations of the vocational rehabilitation process (6th ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

24.

Rumrill

, & Koch

(2014). Vocational rehabilitation counseling. In Hartung

, Sckas

, & Walsh

(Eds.), American Psychological Association handbook of career intervention (pp. 139–155). San Francisco, CA: American Psychological Association Books.

25.

Rumrill

, Roessler

, McMahon

, & Fitzgerald

(2005). Multiple sclerosis and workplace discrimination: The national Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Americans with Disabilities Act research project. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 23(3), 179–188.

26.

Smart

(2009), Disability, society, and the individual. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

27.

Stata (2013). Stata user’s guide (Release 13). College Station, TX: Stata Press.

28.

Strauser

(2013). Career development, employment, and disability in rehabilitation. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.

29.

Super

D. E.

(1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 13, 282–298.

30.

Toriello

, Bishop

, & Rumrill

(2012), New directions in rehabilitation counseling: Creative responses to professional, clinical, and educational challenges. Lake of the Ozarks, MO: Aspen Professional Services.

31.

UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) (2008). Progress of the world’s women 2008/2009: Who answers to women? Gender & accountability. Retrieved on November 26, 2014 from http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=4a09773a2

32.

Wehman

(2013), Life beyond the classroom (5th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.

33.

Wickert

, Dresden

, & Rumrill

(2013), The sandwich generation’s guide to eldercare. New York, NY: Demos.