Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparison of EEOC Closures Involving Hiring Versus Other Prevalent Discrimination Issues Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

  • Published:
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction This article describes findings from a causal comparative study of the Merit Resolution rate for allegations of Hiring discrimination that were filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) between 1992 and 2005. An allegation is the Charging Party’s perception of discrimination, but a Merit Resolution is one in which the EEOC has determined that a discriminatory event did indeed occur. A Non-Merit Resolution is an allegation that is closed due to a technicality or lacks sufficient evidence to conclude that discrimination occurred. Merit favors the Charging Party; Non-Merit favors the Employer. Methods The Merit Resolution rate of 19,527 closed Hiring allegations is compared and contrasted to that of 259,680 allegations aggregated from six other prevalent forms of discrimination including Discharge and Constructive Discharge, Reasonable Accommodation, Disability Harassment and Intimidation, and Terms and Conditions of Employment. Tests of Proportion distributed as chi-square are used to form comparisons along a variety of subcategories of Merit and Non-Merit outcomes. Results The overall Merit Resolution rate for Hiring is 26% compared to Non-Hiring at 20.6%. Employers are less likely to settle claims of hiring discrimination without mediation, and less likely to accept the remedies recommended by the EEOC when hiring discrimination has been determined. Conclusion Hiring is not an unusual discrimination issue in that the overwhelming majority of allegations are still closed in favor of the Employer. However, it is counterintuitive that Hiring has a higher merit resolution rate than other prevalent issues. This finding contradicts the assumption that hiring is an “invisible process.” Considering that the EEOC makes merit determinations at a competitive rate, it is clear that hiring is sufficiently transparent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Huffcutt AI, Conway M, Roth PL, Stone NJ. Identification and meta-analytic assessment of psychological constructs measured in employment interviews. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(5):897–913.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. McMahon BT, Hurley JE, Chan F, Rumrill P, Roessler, Richard. Drivers of hiring discrimination for Americans with disabilities. J Occup Rehab. 2008; in press.

  3. Posthuma RA, Morgeson FP, Campion MA. Beyond employment interview validity: a comprehensive narrative review of recent research and trends over time. Personnel Psychol. 2002;55:1–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Arvonio L, Cull I, Marini I. Employment interview perceptions of persons with visible disabilities. Int J Rehabil Res. 1997;2(3):413–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cesare SJ, Tannenbaum RJ, Dalessio A. Interviewers’ decisions related to applicant handicap type and rater empathy. Hum Perform.1990;3:157–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Charisiou J, Jackson HJ, Boyle GJ, Burgess PM, Minas IH, Joshua SD. Employment interview skills best predict employability of schizophrenic patients? Psychol Rep. 1989;64:683–94.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Christman LA, Branson DH. Influence of physical disability and dress of female job applicant on interviewers. Cloth Text Res J. 1990;8:51–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gething L. Nurse practictioner’s and preservice teachers’ attitudes towards people with disabilities. Aust J Adv Nurs. 1992;9(3):25–30.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hayes TL, Macan TH. Comparison of the factors influencing interviewer Hiring decisions for applicants with and those without disabilities. J Bus Psychol. 1997;11:357–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hebl MR, Kleck RE. Acknowledging one’s stigma in the interview setting: strategy or liability? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA, April, 1999.

  11. Henry DB. The employment interview and persons with disabilities: an investigation using the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois-Chicago, 1993. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 3884.

  12. Herold KP. The effects of an interviewee’s self-disclosure and disability on selected perceptions and attitudes of interviewers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi, 1995. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 28.

  13. Nordstrom CR, Huffaker BJ, Williams KB. When physical disabilities are not liabilities: the role of applicant and interviewer characteristics on employment interview outcomes. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1998;28:283–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Macan TH, Hayes TL. Both sides of the employment interview interaction: perceptions of interviewers and applicants with disabilities. Rehabil Psychol. 1995;40:261–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Marchioro CA, Bartels LK. Perceptions of a job interviewee with a disability. Special issue: psychosocial perspectives on disability. J Soc Behav Pers. 1994;9(2):383–94.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Miceli NS. An investigation of bias toward persons with disabilities m employment selection decisions. Doctoral dissertation. University of Oklahoma, 1996. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 3580.

  17. Reilly NP, Bocketti S, Maser S, Gregson S, Records M, Strickland C, et al. Perceptions of prior disabilities in structured selection interviews. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA, April, 2000.

  18. Wright GE, Multon KD. Employer’s perceptions of nonverbal communication in job interviews for persons with physical disabilities. J Vocat Behav. 1995;47:214–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Drehmer DE, Bordieri JE. Hiring decisions for disabled workers: the hidden bias. Rehabil Psychol. 1985;30:157–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bordieri J, Drehmer D, Taricone P. Personnel selection bias for job applicants with cancer. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1990;20:244–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gouvier WD, Steiner DD, Jackson WT, Schlater D, Rain J. Employment discrimination against handicapped job applicants: an analog study of the effects of neurological causation, visibility of handicap and public contact. Rehabil Psychol. 1991;36:121–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gourvier WD, Sytsma-Jordan S, Mayville S. Patterns of discrimination in Hiring job applicants with disabilities: the role of disability type, job complexity, and public contact. Rehabil Psychol. 2005;48(3):175–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. McMahon B. Workplace discrimination against Americans with disabilities. Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Workplace Supports and Job Retention, 2006.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported through the VCU Coordination, Outreach and Research Center for the National Network of ADA Resource Centers, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, U.S. Department of Education (PR# H133A060087). Appreciation is extended to Dr. Ronald Edwards, Office of Research, Information and Planning, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Database support was provided by Dr. Mehdi Mansouri.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Rehabilitation Counseling and Physical Medicine/Rehabilitation, Virginia Commonwealth University, PO Box 980330, Richmond, VA, 23298-0330, USA

    Brian T. McMahon

  2. Department of Rehabilitation Counseling, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA

    Jessica E. Hurley & Steven L. West

  3. Department of Rehabilitation Psychology and Special Education, University of Wisconsin at Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    Fong Chan

  4. Department of Rehabilitation, Human Resources, and Communication Disorders, University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, Fayetteville, AR, USA

    Richard Roessler

  5. Disability Institute at Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA

    Phillip D. Rumrill Jr.

Authors
  1. Brian T. McMahon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jessica E. Hurley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steven L. West
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fong Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Richard Roessler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Phillip D. Rumrill Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian T. McMahon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McMahon, B.T., Hurley, J.E., West, S.L. et al. A Comparison of EEOC Closures Involving Hiring Versus Other Prevalent Discrimination Issues Under the Americans with Disabilities Act. J Occup Rehabil 18, 106–111 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-008-9135-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-008-9135-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation