Originally published here.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities (McMahon, Edwards, Rumrill, & Hursh, 2005), was passed in 1990 and took effect in 1992. Two decades later, even with the passage of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, discrimination against those with disabilities persists. Studies show that adults with disabilities are significantly underutilized and underrepresented in the paid labor force (Erickson & Lee, 2007; Erickson, Lee, & von Schrader, 2012). Compared to their nondisabled peers, adults with disabilities have lower labor force participation rates, are less likely to be employed full-time, and face more barriers to reemployment (Burkhauser, Houtenville, & Wittenburg, 2001; Burkhauser & Stapleton, 2003; DeLeire, 2000a, 2000b; Hotchkiss, 2004; Houtenville & Burkhauser, 2005; Jolls & Prescott, 2004). Workers with disabilities are often overrepresented in highly physical, entry level, lowskill occupations where they earn low wages and are most vulnerable to job loss (Kaye, 2009). Further, people with disabilities often report lower participation in organizational decision-making, and receive less training (Schur, Kruse, Blasi, & Blanck, 2009).

The bleak employment outcomes for Americans with disabilities are often attributed to negative stereotypes, including the beliefs that they are less skilled, require more supervision, increase health care costs, and have low levels of emotional adjustment (Stone-Romero, Stone, & Lukaszewski, 2006). Employers’ persistent stereotypes of people with disabilities promote negative expectations (Stone & Colella, 1996) which have been shown to influence hiring decisions and performance reviews (Ren, Paetzold, & Colella, 2008).

These adverse workplace experiences have been the subject of more than 550,000 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigations of workplace discrimination filed by people with various disabilities under Title I of the ADA from 1992 through 2011 (Bowe, McMahon, Chang, & Louvie, 2005; McKenna, Fabian, Hurley, McMahon, & West, 2007; Rumrill, Roessler, McMahon, & Fitzgerald, 2005, Van Wieren, Reid, & McMahon, 2008). Indeed, Rumrill and Koch (2014) described workplace discrimination as one of the unifying features of the employment experience for Americans with disabilities.

Results of this investigation reveal a mix of similarities and differences in the workplace discrimination experiences of older and younger adult workers with disabilities. Specifically, there were no significant age differences in the size of Employers against whom allegations were filed. 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.

Further, the findings suggest that age is not a factor in the resolution of the EEOC’s investigatory process. Together, these findings speak well of the professionalism of EEOC investigators and Employer efforts to implement the ADA for employees and job candidates across the lifespan. These initiatives and advocacy are important because the number of older workers (many of whom have age-related impairments) in the workforce is expected to continue to increase, and the continued employment of older workers has benefits for individuals as well as organizations.

Older workers with disabilities were less likely than their younger counterparts to allege discrimination related to unlawful discharge, suggesting that the strengths older workers with disabilities bring to the workplace (e.g., leadership, work ethic) may prevent them from being terminated. Additional workplace policies, such as intergenerational mentorship programs, could be one strategy to reduce the factors that precipitate unlawful discharge allegations from younger workers with disabilities by providing opportunities for older workers to share their knowledge and experience with their younger counterparts.

Importantly, there were issues related to maintaining employment, such as terms/conditions, assignment, layoff, and involuntary retirement, which were more likely to be cited by older Charging Parties, suggesting that these issues require redoubled efforts with respect to ADA training and technical assistance regarding older workers with disabilities. Finally, group differences in the industry designations of employers against whom ADA Title I allegations were filed suggest that ADA training and technical assistance efforts should be tailored to specific industries(e.g.,education,healthcare,thearts)wherethe incidence of alleged discrimination against older workers with disabilities is especially high.

You can read the complete article here.