The Act reflects an unambiguous congressional intent to eliminate disability discrimination in all facets of society, including the workplace. … When an employer moves for summary judgment, claiming that its disabled employee is not statutorily qualified, and\/or when an employer claims that its good faith attempt to reasonably accommodate a disabled employee should immunize it against a claim for compensatory and punitive damages, the employer’s failure to interact could influence the court’s decision. … Speaking of employer attempts to accommodate, the regulation states that “it may be necessary” for employers to engage in an interactive process. … Certain courts have stated that, although employers will incur liability where they fail to reasonably accommodate a qualified individual with a disability, and the EEOC-recommended interactive process is an excellent method by which to find the appropriate accommodation, employers are not required to comply with the EEOC guidelines. … The Barnett court held that “employers, who fail to engage in the interactive process in good faith, face liability for the remedies imposed by the statute if a reasonable accommodation would have been possible.<\/p>\n
Empirical study of the Americans with Disabilities Act: Employment issues from 1990 to 1994<\/h2>\n
Blanck, P. D. (1995). “Empirical study of the Americans with Disabilities Act: Employment issues from 1990 to 1994.” Behavioral Sciences & the Law,<\/strong> 14<\/strong>(1): 5-27.<\/p>\n The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 is the most comprehensive federal civil rights law addressing discrimination against one-fifth of the American population. This article is meant to contribute to the emerging dialogue on ADA implementation by presenting information from a longitudinal investigation of employment integration and economic opportunity under the employment provisions of the ADA, set forth in Title I of the act. The broader relevance of the investigation to merging questions under Title I law is described. Thereafter, the investigation’s seven core findings are presented, and then the implications for future investigation of the ADA are examined.<\/p>\n Bruyere, S. M., Erickson, W. A., & VanLooy, S. (2004). “Comparative study of workplace policy and practices contributing to disability nondiscrimination.” Rehabilitation Psychology<\/strong>, 49<\/strong>(1): 28-38.<\/p>\n Objective: To assess the impact of disability nondiscrimination legislation on employer practices in the United States and the United Kingdom. Study Design: U.S. and U.K. human resource professionals were surveyed about their experience with implementation of the legislation. Results: Both U.S. and U.K. employers are responding to their respective legislation by making accommodations-adjustments needed by applicants and employees with disabilities. Conclusions: Rehabilitation psychologists and other health care professionals working with people with disabilities must understand employee rights and employer responsibilities under this legislation, know where employers may have difficulty in responding to an accommodation request, and be familiar with the existing workplace resources and processes that can support an effective response to such requests.<\/p>\n Christie, L., & Kleiner, B. H. (2001). “New developments concerning reasonable accommodation of disabilities in American organizations.” Equal Opportunities International<\/strong>, 20<\/strong>(5\/6\/7): 152-156.<\/p>\n Suggests that trends are beginning to emerge in regard to the reasonable accommodation of disabilities, particularly those which help us deal with the accommodations. Provides information regarding recent court decisions which further defined interpretation and given guidelines. Looks at some of the creative ways in which assistance is provided. Concludes that the Act is opening many more doors to those previously denied employment, and recent cases have soothed the fears of employers by their fair and just resolutions.<\/p>\n Greenlaw, P. S., & Kohl, J. P. (1992). “The ADA: Public personnel management, reasonable accommodation and undue hardship.” Public Personnel Management<\/strong>, 21<\/strong>(4): 411-427.<\/p>\n Reviews provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act that affect the public sector; examines in detail the concepts of reasonable accommodation and undue hardship in the act and in Equal Employment Opportunities Commission interpretations.<\/p>\n Gunderson, M., Hyatt, D., & Law, D. (1995). “Reasonable accommodation requirements under workers’ compensation in Ontario.” Industrial Relations<\/strong>, 50<\/strong>(2): 341-360.<\/p>\n A relatively new and potentially important administrative forum for interpreting the concept of reasonable accommodation has been created by the Ontario Workers’ Compensation Act as amended in 1989. The revised act contained provisions requiring employers to reemploy, and where necessary make reasonable accommodations for, workers following an injury. Though representing an important reformation for the workers’ compensation system, accommodation requirements are present in other labor market policy initiatives. The accommodation requirements in other legislation and jurisprudence in Canada are discussed, the recent reforms to the Ontario Workers’ Compensation Act are described in which accommodation represents an integral component, and the new and emerging jurisprudence under the revised act are outlined.<\/p>\n Habeck, R., Kregel, J., Head, C., & Yasuda, S. (2007). “Salient and subtle aspects of demand side approaches for employment retention: Lessons for public policymakers.” Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation<\/strong>, 26<\/strong>(1): 21-27.<\/p>\n Public policies to stimulate demand side factors that affect the employment status of people with disabilities need to consider workplace efforts that support the continued employment of employees who develop work limitations from any cause (back door factors), as well as the hiring behaviors of employers (front door factors). Workplace participation rates are influenced by employment exits as well as placements. Little focus has been given to preventing separation from employment, despite evidence of the progression to public disability benefits. Factors that place employees who develop impairments or work limitations at risk for early exit from employment are discussed. Preliminary findings from a qualitative study of successful firms are identified and illustrated with practice examples. Implications of these effective interventions are raised, including the provision of workplace based services, the need for accommodations over time, and the role of employer incentives for retention.<\/p>\nComparative study of workplace policy and practices contributing to disability nondiscrimination<\/h2>\n
New developments concerning reasonable accommodation of disabilities in American organizations<\/h2>\n
The ADA: Public personnel management, reasonable accommodation and undue hardship<\/h2>\n
Reasonable accommodation requirements under workers’ compensation in Ontario<\/h2>\n
Salient and subtle aspects of demand side approaches for employment retention: Lessons for public policymakers<\/h2>\n
The role of organizational policies and practices in predicting post surgical change in self-efficacy and accommodation following carpal tunnel release surgery<\/h2>\n
![\"opens](\"https:\/\/adainfo.org\/sites\/default\/files\/external-link.gif\")
<\/a><\/p>\n