Date Presented 3/30/2017
People with visual impairments experienced workplace discrimination, yet most of the charges were not substantiated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, indicating the need for targeted education and advocacy for this vulnerable population to achieve parity with their non–visually disabled peers in the workplace.
Primary Author and Speaker: Callie Victor
Contributing Authors: Callie Victor, Dianne Pawluk, Kelli Williams Gary, Leroy Thacker II
BACKGROUND: Employment plays an important role for most adults in the United States as it fulfills a desire to interact with society. However, for individuals with disabilities, including visual impairments, unfair workplace practices may prevent employment or satisfaction with employment (Kielhofner, 2008). Despite the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) enacted to protect individuals with disabilities in the workplace, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) continues to receive formal charges alleging workplace discrimination. Before the ADAAA, a majority of the discrimination charges from individuals with visual impairments were deemed nonmeritorious by the EEOC, thereby determining discrimination against the employee had not occurred (Unger, Rumrill, & Hennessey, 2005). Yet, following the passage of the ADAAA, there were no studies addressing the laws’ effectiveness in protecting individuals with visual impairments against workplace discrimination.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine where to focus professional efforts for individuals with visual impairments based on the outcomes of filed discrimination charges. The proposed research question was, Are there associations between outcome resolutions before and after the enactment of the ADAAA regarding a visual impairment?
METHOD: The study conducted was a cross-sectional retrospective database analysis of 11,482 resolution outcomes from filed discrimination charges under the ADA and ADAAA of the EEOC disability code BLINDVIS (vision impairment). Following a formal research proposal, the deidentified raw data were obtained on May 11, 2015, from the Integrated Mission System database, a component of the National EEOC ADA Research Project. A Pearson chi-square analysis was used to determine associations between the categorical variables. Two time period groups represented the resolution outcomes. The first represented the ADA (July 26, 1992, to December 31, 2008), and the second represented the ADAAA (January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2011).
RESULTS: The study results did not reveal associations before and after the ADAAA and whether resolution outcomes were merit or nonmeritorious. After enactment of the ADAAA, resolutions that favored the employee, indicating discrimination occurred, increased by less than 1%. Additionally, there was a less than 1% decrease in nonmerit resolutions between the two time periods. Subsequently, 72.9% of all discrimination charges after the ADAAA from individuals with visual impairments resulted in nonmeritorious outcomes.
CONCLUSION: A primary intent of the ADAAA was to shift the courts’ focus from determining if an individual had a disability to determining if workplace discrimination actually occurred (Vierling, 2009). It may be that individuals with visual impairments had surpassed the initial step of establishing that a visual impairment was a disability, yet were unable to establish that they could perform the essential job functions. This could explain the trivial increase in merit resolutions for individuals with visual impairments following the enactment of the ADAAA.
Individuals with visual impairments experienced workplace discrimination, yet most of the formal charges were not substantiated by the EEOC. This indicates the need for targeted education and advocacy for this vulnerable population to achieve parity with their non–visually disabled peers in the workplace. Being able to distinguish actual discrimination and build a case for its occurrence is paramount for employees. For employment and satisfaction with employment for individuals with visual impairments, mastering the demands of the job, adapting and using environmental resources, and overcoming workplace challenges are essential.
References
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101–336, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213 (2000).
ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110–325, 122 Stat. 3553.
Kielhofner, G. (2008). Model of human occupation: Theory and application (4th ed.). Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Unger, D. D., Rumrill, P. D., & Hennessey, M. L. (2005). Resolutions of ADA Title I cases involving people who are visually impaired: A comparative analysis. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 99, 453–463.
Vierling, L. E. (2009). Congress seeks to restore protection with the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. Professional Case Management, 14, 265–267. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCM.0b013e3181bade37
