Employment and Disability Institute

Employment and Disability Institute

Collection

Cornell University Year 

Survey of the Federal Government on

Supervisor Practices in Employment of

People with Disabilities

Susanne M. Bruyere∗ William Erickson†

Richard L. Horne‡

∗Cornell University, smb23@cornell.edu

†Cornell University, wae1@cornell.edu

‡Cornell University, horne-richard@dol.gov

This paper is posted at DigitalCommons@ILR.

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/edicollect/65
Research conducted by

Cornell University

Program on Employment and Disability

School of Industrial and Labor Relations

Extension Division

Ithaca, New York

March, 2002

Survey of the Federal Government

on Supervisor Practices in Employment

of People with Disabilities
©2002 Cornell University

Citations of this publication should be made as follows: Bruyère, S., Erickson, W., &; Horne, R. (2002).

Survey of the Federal Government on Supervisor Practices in Employment of People with Disabilities.

Report by the Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities. Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, Program on Employment

and Disability.

This document was developed Cornell University, Program on Employment and Disability, School

of Industrial Relations—Extension Division, funded by a grant from the Presidential Task Force on

Employment of Adults with Disabilities (Grant No. E-9-4-0-0088). The opinions herein do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the U.S. Department of Labor or the Federal government. Nor

does the mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply the endorsement of

the Federal Government.

Graphic Design: Julie Manners
Survey of the 

Federal Government 

on Supervisor Practices 

in Employment of People 

with Disabilities
2 
3

Table of Contents

5 Acknowledgment

6 Background

7 Organization of the Report

7 Methodology

9 Data Analysis 

9 Survey Respondents 

10 Findings at a Glance

10 Supervisor characteristics and experience 

 with accommodation 

10 Recruitment, pre-employment screening, 

 testing and orientation

11 Opportunities for promotion and advancement 

 for people with disabilities

11 Supervisor training and resources on ADA/

 accommodation/disability issues

12 Presidential Orders to promote hiring/ 

 accommodation of people with disabilities

13 Survey Results

13 Supervisors Report on Accommodations 

 for Applicants

16 Supervisors Report on Accommodation Practices

19 Opportunities for Promotion/Training 

 for People with Disabilities

21 Supervisor Experience in Resolving 

 Disability Discrimination Issues

23 Training on Civil Rights –Related Topics

25 Disability Management and 

 Workplace Accommodation

26 Awareness of and Impact to Date 

 of Presidential Orders

26 Implementation of Section 508

26 Off-site/Telework for Federal Employees 

 with Disabilities

28 Awareness and Implementation of

 Federal Government Hiring Executive Order

29 Awareness and Implementation of Executive 

 Order to Establish Written Accommodation 

 Procedures

30 Summary and Implications

37 Appendices

39 Survey

55 List of Participating Agencies

56 Respondent Demographics

57 Additional Resources
4 
5

Acknowledgment

The survey was conducted by Cornell University under the auspices, including the funding, of the Presidential 

Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities. Dr. Richard Horne, Senior Policy Advisor, served as Project 

Officer for the study and provided the leadership that helped ensure quality survey results. 

The Staff of the Cornell University Computer-Assisted Survey Team (CAST), and its Director Yasamin DiCiccio

conducted the telephone survey; Carolyn Wong, Student Assistant, assisted in further identification of needed 

contact information for supervisors in various agencies; and Sara VanLooy, Research Assistant, provided research and administrative support.

A list of the collaborating Federal agencies of the Task Force is included in Appendix B. Many individuals within 

the specific agencies made this study possible with their significant assistance in helping us design additional 

items needed for this survey, selecting the needed random sample of supervisors, and locating specific supervisors targeted in the sample. Therefore, we would like to acknowledge and thank those individuals who cooperated and contributed so much to making this study, with a response rate of 93 percent, so very successful. 

Those receiving our specific thanks and recognition are: 

Mercedes Olivari, Rosemary Downing, and Kitty Kobert, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) provided 

significant support and guidance in the preparation of the survey. Charles Kawecki, OPM, helped prepare 

the list of agency contact names. Bob Heim, OPM, implemented the sample selection using the design 

criteria. Keith Bailey, Department of Labor, assisted in conducting focus groups of representative Federal 

personnel that provided valuable input for the survey instrument design. 

Agency liaisons who provided supervisor contact information were:

Tanya Cantrell and Carlotta Grinage, Department of the Treasury; Al Stewart, Department of Labor; 

Michelle Sutton, Federal Communications Commission; Cathy Williams, Department of Veterans Affairs; 

Dan Adams, Department of Education; Sandra Timbrook, Department of Housing and Urban Development; 

Frank Chow, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Donna Harris and Octavia Smith, Social Security 

Administration; Janet Cope, OPM; Tami Washington, Department of the Interior; Bill Taylor, Department 

of Justice; Ethel D. Briggs, National Council On Disability; Carolyn Parker and Ted Slusarczyk, Department 

of Commerce; Barbara Iba, Department of Health and Human Services; Steve Kuhns, Small Business Administration; Cliff Taylor and John Robertson, Department of Agriculture; and Marc Brenman and Jackie 

Lewis, Department of Transportation. 

Our sincere thanks to each of these individuals and their respective agencies for the collaboration and support 

that made this study possible.

Susanne M. Bruyère, Director

William A. Erickson, Research Specialist

Program on Employment and Disability

Cornell University
6 

The Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities (Task Force) was established by Executive Order 13078 to create a coordinated and aggressive national policy to increase the 

employment rate of persons with disabilities. Seventeen Federal agencies serve as members of the Task 

Force. Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao is the Task 

Force Chair. The other member agencies are the Department of Education, Department of Veterans Affairs, 

Department of Health and Human Services, the Social 

Security Administration, Department of the Treasury, 

Department of Commerce, Department of Transportation, Office of Personnel Management, Small Business Administration, Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission, Federal Communications Commission, 

National Council on Disability, Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, Department of the Interior, 

Department of Agriculture, and Department of Justice.

The Task Force provided support to Cornell University 

to conduct research in order to address the Task Force 

mandate that relates to the Federal government as a 

model employer of people with disabilities. This research 

is a part of the efforts of the Task Force to meet the 

Section 2(a) mandate of the Executive Order. This 

mandate states that “...the Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Labor, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall submit to the Task 

Force a review of Federal Government personnel laws, 

regulations, and policies and, as appropriate, shall 

recommend or implement changes necessary to improve 

Federal employment policy for adults with disabilities. 

This review shall include personnel practices and actions 

such as: hiring, promotion, benefits, retirement, 

workers’ compensation, retention, accessible facilities, 

job accommodations, layoffs, and reductions in force.” 

The first step in this endeavor was to conduct an 

analysis of the policy and practice efforts of Federal 

agency Human Resource Directors and Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) personnel in recruiting and 

retaining persons with disabilities in Federal emBackground

ployment. The survey of U. S. Federal agencies, titled 

Survey of the Federal Government on Human Resources/

EEO Policies and Practices in Employment of People 

with Disabilities was completed in 1999. This research 

identified how Federal agencies were responding to 

the employment disability nondiscrimination requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

(ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,1 as amended. In November 1999, the Task Force released the 

results of this survey in a report, Disability Employment Policies and Practices in U.S. Federal Government Agencies, which included recommendations 

based on the findings from the study.2

One of the recommendations from this research was 

to conduct a follow-up study of Federal agency supervisors and managers about their experience in 

accommodation and employment of persons with 

disabilities in the Federal sector, and in addition to 

inquire about their awareness of the series of Executive Orders issued in 2000 supporting employment 

and accommodation of individuals with disabilities 

in the Federal workforce. This second survey activity 

was initiated in Spring of 2001. This report, therefore, 

provides information on the results from this current 

survey of supervisors and managers, which parallels 

similar information obtained from the initial survey 

of human resource and EEO professionals across the 

Federal government. It describes supervisors’ experiences with accommodation of people with disabilities 

as applicants and employees in the Federal workforce, 

and their experience and perceptions of the effectiveness of existing and proposed resources to facilitate 

1 Under section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, Federal employers 

may not discriminate against people with disabilities in hiring, 

placement or advancement practices. Federal agencies are required 

to establish affirmative action plans to make it clear that the 

Federal Government is an equal opportunity employer. This applies 

to each department, agency and instrumentality of the executive 

branch of the Federal Government. For further information see 

http://www.jan.wvu.edu/media/REHABACT.html.

2

 A copy of this Report can be obtained from the USDOL website at 

http://www.dol.gov/-sec/programs/ptfead/related.html.
7

3 Further information about this research can be found in Bruyère, 

S. (2000). Disability Employment Policies and Practices in Private 

and Federal Sector Organizations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 

School of Industrial and Labor Relations Extension Division, 

Program on Employment and Disability, available on the Cornell 

University web site at http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/extension/files/

download/comparison16REVISED.pdf .

the hiring, retention, and accommodation of people 

with disabilities. 

A final study will focus on the perspectives of Federal 

employees with disabilities, and a separate report 

detailing the results of this study will also be issued 

shortly. A report comparing the responses from Federal 

agency human resource (HR) and Equal Employment 

Opportunity (EEO) professionals with the Federal 

supervisors and managers similarly surveyed, and the 

focus group of employees with disabilities will be 

provided in a separate summarizing report. 

This U. S. Federal supervisor survey research effort 

was conducted by the Program on Employment and 

Disability, with the assistance of the Computer Assisted Survey Team (CAST), both located in the School 

of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University. 

Cornell University, founded in 1868, is one of the 

Ivy League institutions in the Northeastern United 

States, and is based upon a unique integration of 

publicly and privately funded colleges. The Cornell 

University School of Industrial and Labor Relations is 

the foremost school of its kind in the world, boasting over fifty years of leadership and service. It hosts 

the largest collection of scholars in human resources 

and issues related to the workplace, and includes the 

areas of human resources, organizational behavior, 

labor relations, collective bargaining, labor economics, and social statistics. The Extension Division of 

the School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell 

University has provided continuing education and 

technical assistance, nationally and regionally, on issues surrounding the workplace and disability for over 

30 years. The Program on Employment and Disability

contributes to development of inclusive workplace 

systems and communities for people with disabilities 

through research, the development of training materials, dissemination of this information in training 

efforts regionally, nationally, and internationally, provision of technical assistance on related topics, and 

production of scholarly materials. The Computer-Assisted Survey Team (CAST) is a full-service survey facility 

housed in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations 

offering state-of-the-art technology to researchers at 

Cornell University and elsewhere; this unit provided 

data collection and statistical analysis support for this 

survey. 

Organization of the Report

T

he results of the current survey are presented in 

this report as descriptive information without 

analysis; the implications of the survey information are discussed at the end, in the section titled 

“Summary and Implications.” 

Methodology

A

ten page, approximately 200 item survey 

was designed to capture information on the 

experiences and perceptions of supervisors and 

managers in the 17 Task Force member agencies in response to the employment nondiscrimination requirements of Federal civil rights legislation and recent 

Executive Branch directives and initiatives related 

to the accommodation process and the employment/

supervision of individuals with disabilities. The survey 

was designed to parallel the previous Task Force/

Cornell University survey of 403 Human Resources and 

EEO representatives across 97 Federal agencies performed in 1999, which itself drew extensively from a 

similar survey of private sector employers by Cornell 

University in 1998.3 

Several new sections and questions were designed to 

specifically address supervisors’ experience and the 

unique issues they deal with in the workplace. The 

survey covers issues dealing with: demographics and 

experience of supervisors; their awareness, use and 

perception of the helpfulness of reasonable accom-
8 

4

Federal Civilian Workforce Statistics: Demographic Profile 

of the Federal Workforce, as of September 30, 2000, http:

//www.opm.gov/feddata/demograp/00demogr.pdf

5

Targeted disabilities, as defined by the Equal Employment Opportunity commission (EEOC), are disabilities “targeted“ for emphasis 

in affirmative action planning. These are: deafness, blindness, 

missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, convulsive disorders, mental retardation, mental illness, and genetic or 

physical condition affecting limbs and/or spine. EEOC recognizes 

that some disabilities that are not targeted are nevertheless just 

as severe or more severe than some disabilities that are targeted.

modation resources; recruitment, pre-employment 

screening, testing, and new employee orientation; 

opportunities for promotion and training; disciplinary 

and termination processes; supervisors’ training on 

employment disability nondiscrimination and on the 

accommodation process, including the effectiveness 

of incentives for supervisor training; resources used 

and found most helpful in handling disability nondiscrimination and accommodation disputes; the role of 

disability management (“return to work”) programs in 

contributing to the accommodation process, as well 

as co-worker and supervisor acceptance of employees 

with disabilities; and supervisors’ awareness and the 

impact of recent Executive Branch directives and initiatives, including Section 508, and the Federal initiative regarding telecommuting/telework for individuals 

with significant disabilities. A copy of 

the survey is provided in Appendix A.

According to the most recent Federal Civilian Workforce Statistics,4 the 17 Task Force agencies account 

for over half (54 percent) of the total employees 

in the Executive branch of the Federal government, 

employing close to a million employees (948,867). 

These agencies employ 63,424 people with disabilities 

(seven percent of all employees in these agencies), 

including 11,790 employees5 (less than one percent) with EEOC targeted disabilities. Nearly 100,000 

(n=99,982) of these one million employees have 

supervisory responsibilities, with blue-collar supervisors accounting for eight percent of this population 

and white-collar supervisors making up the remaining 

92 percent (Office of Personnel Management personal 

communication, March 8, 2001). This is the group of 

supervisors from which the participants were selected 

for this study.

An initial sample of approximately 3,000 supervisors 

was randomly selected by the U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) from the pool of all supervisors 

in the 17 Task Force member agencies. This sample 

includes both supervisors and managers with supervisory duties as defined by OPM’s classification 

system. For simplification in describing the results, 

in the remainder of this report the term “supervisor” will be used to refer to the participants of the 

study. The sampling strategy included oversampling 

for smaller agencies and blue-collar supervisors to 

provide adequate numbers, allowing for more accurate 

estimates for these potentially unique groups. Contact 

information (e-mail addresses and phone numbers) for 

the supervisors selected were solicited from each participating agency, resulting in 2,448 supervisors with 

complete information. Except for the National Council 

on Disability, which has only 2 supervisors, information from 50 supervisors was the desired minimum 

from each agency, with larger agencies getting proportionally more above this minimum. The overall target 

for the survey was 1000 respondents.

The survey was conducted by telephone by Cornell 

University’s Computer Assisted Survey Team (CAST) 

using a CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) system. An initial pilot test of the phone survey instrument was conducted with 20 supervisors to 

fine-tune the questions and response categories prior 

to full survey implementation. For the full survey, 

respondents received a notification via e-mail (letters 

were used in the case of the Department of Veteran’s 

Affairs) from the Task Force explaining the project and 

requesting their participation. Respondents were then 

contacted by telephone a few days later to arrange for 

an interview time. Notifications were first sent on July 

11, 2001, and phone contacts began two days later. 

Due to delays caused by the events of September 

11, 2001, data collection was completed January 10, 

2002. To be eligible to participate in the survey, each 

respondent had to be a supervisor of at least one 

employee and have at least twelve months of actual 
9

supervisory experience. A total of 1,001 surveys were 

completed, by 191 blue-collar and 810 white-collar 

supervisors, across the 17 Task Force member agencies 

(see Appendix B for sample breakdown by agency). 

The response rate was very high, with 93 percent of 

supervisors contacted participating. Agency and bluecollar/white-collar completion targets were achieved 

in all but one agency. 

Data Analysis 

Due to the differences in the types and nature 

of positions supervised by blue and whitecollar supervisors, responses to each question 

were compared using Chi-squared tests or T-tests as 

appropriate, to determine if the answers were significantly different (at a level of p=0.05) and should be 

presented separately. As only nine of the 17 Task Force 

agencies had any blue-collar supervisors, there was 

a possibility that differences found might be driven 

by differences between agencies with and without 

blue-collar supervisors. Therefore, all blue/white-collar significant differences were retested restricting the 

sample to the nine agencies with blue and white-collar supervisors (thereby controlling for agency). If the 

difference remained significant with this agency controlled sample (in most cases it did), it is likely driven 

by actual differences between blue and white-collar 

supervisors and is presented as such in this report. In 

addition, selected questions were examined comparing 

supervisors who reported supervising employees with 

disabilities to those who had no such experience. As 

supervisors with employees with disabilities were more 

likely to supervise larger numbers of employees (which 

could impact their responses), 

all analysis controlled for the number of employees 

supervised. These groupings were virtually identical in 

the proportion of blue and white-collar supervisors. 

The results presented in this report exclude “don’t 

know” and “refused” response categories. However, 

these accounted for less than two percent of all 

responses, unless otherwise noted. All information is 

presented in aggregate to protect the confidentiality 

of the individual respondents and their agencies.

Survey Respondents 

T

he supervisors surveyed had significant supervisory experience in the Federal government. A 

summary of selected supervisor characteristics is 

presented in Appendix C. Over half of the participating supervisors (56 percent) were senior management, 

in General Schedule grades of 13-15 (range 1-15 with 

15 being the highest grade level). Over 95 percent of 

the supervisors surveyed had been with their agency 

five or more years. Fully half the respondents reported 

more than ten years of experience as a Federal supervisor, with 23 percent reporting six to ten years and 

27 percent reporting between one and five years. As 

noted above, all respondents were required to have 

been a supervisor for at least one year and supervise 

at least one employee to participate in the survey. 

Over 85 percent of the supervisors contacted fulfilled 

these criteria. 

In response to the question: “number of Federal employees you are the immediate supervisor of,” over a 

third 

of respondents (36 percent) supervised between 1-6 

employees, a third (33 percent) supervised between 

7-12 employees and the remainder (31 percent) supervised more than 12. A second question asked about 

the total number of employees they supervised. More 

than two out of five (43 percent) supervised a total of 

1-10 employees, a quarter (25 percent) supervised 11-

20, a quarter (25 percent) supervised between 21 and 

90 employees, with the remainder (7 percent) supervising more than 90 employees. Overall, the number 

of employees immediately supervised by this group of 

supervisors was nearly 15,000, with the total number 

of employees supervised approaching 40,000. Three 

out of five supervisors reported experience supervising 

at least one employee with a disability over the last 

five years.
10 

Findings at a Glance

Supervisor characteristics and experience with 

accommodation 

■ The supervisors surveyed had significant experience 

in the Federal government, with over half reporting 

ten or more years as a Federal supervisor. 

■ Nearly two-thirds of the supervisors surveyed had at 

least one employee with a disability and/or had made 

at least one accommodation over the past five years 

or in their tenure as a Federal supervisor (whichever is 

less).

■ When asked about the kinds of accommodations 

made overall for employees with disabilities, supervisors most often reported having advocated to make 

existing facilities accessible to an employee with a 

disability, or modifying a work environment. The accommodations made by the fewest supervisors were 

reassignment to a vacant position and providing a job 

coach.

■ Of those reporting having supervised an individual 

with a disability over the past five years, most reported supervising people with musculoskeletal injuries, and/or hearing and vision impairments.

■ When asked who makes the final decision on the 

provision of an accommodation, half the respondents indicated that either they make the decision 

in consultation with their immediate supervisor, or 

they make the decision themselves, as the immediate 

supervisor of the requesting employee.

■ Three-quarters of the respondents indicated that 

their agency has a formal process in place for handling 

accommodations requests.

■ The resources for accommodation assistance used by 

the largest number of supervisors were human resource 

personnel at the central and servicing/sub-agency 

levels. 

■ Close to half of the supervisors were not aware 

of the following accommodation resources: the Job 

Accommodation Network (JAN), the Disability Services 

Office, disabled employee advisory groups, and selective placement coordinators. Interestingly, supervisors with experience supervising one or more employees with disabilities were no more likely to be aware 

of these four resources than those without experience. 

However, they were more aware of Independent Living 

Centers (87 percent compared to 79 percent), State 

Rehabilitation agencies (85 percent compared to 78 

percent) and external health care providers (87 percent compared to 81 percent) as resources.

Recruitment, pre-employment screening, testing 

and orientation

■ Eighty percent of the respondents reported having made a hire in the past five years (or since they 

became a Federal supervisor, whichever was less), with 

one-third of these reporting that they had hired at 

least one person with a disability in this period.

■ One-third of the respondents reported being very 

involved in recruitment within their agency, with 

white-collar supervisors more likely to be involved 

than blue-collar. 

■ Over half of the supervisors involved in recruitment 

reported being very familiar or somewhat familiar with 

the special hiring authorities for the Federal government that promote hiring disabled veterans, while 

approximately one-third were familiar with hiring 

readers/interpreters and other personal assistants for 

employees with disabilities, and the special hiring authorities for hiring people with cognitive disabilities 

(mental retardation), significant physical disabilities, 

or people who have recovered from mental illness. 

Supervisors with experience supervising one or more 

employees with disabilities reported greater familiarity 

with each of the special hiring authorities than those 

who had not supervised employees with disabilities. 
11

■ Over half of the respondents reported that when 

changes were made to accommodate individuals with 

disabilities in the recruitment and pre-employment 

screening processes, these changes were easy or very 

easy to make. 

■ Over half of the respondents indicated that the 

agency set reasonable affirmative employment goals 

and made an effort to achieve these goals.

■ More than a third of supervisors surveyed reported 

being unfamiliar or very unfamiliar with accommodations for persons with communication disabilities, 

such as adapting print materials used in the interview 

(to large print, diskette, or Braille), using a reader 

to assist a person with a learning disability or visual 

impairment, using a teletypewriter (TTY) or relay service to set up interviews, and accessing sign language 

interpreters. Surprisingly, supervisors with experience supervising employees with disabilities were not 

significantly more familiar with these accommodations 

than those who had not supervised any employees 

with disabilities.

Opportunities for promotion and advancement for 

people with disabilities

■ When asked about continuing barriers to employment or advancement of people with disabilities, 

supervisors most often identified the lack of related 

experience or requisite skills and training on behalf 

of the individuals with disabilities, lack of supervisor knowledge of which accommodation to make, the 

workplace failing to provide an accommodation when 

needed, and attitudes and stereotypes towards people 

with disabilities. Interestingly, the perception of these 

barriers was 

not significantly different between supervisors with 

experience supervising employees with disabilities and 

supervisors without employees with disabilities.

■ Supervisors responding to this survey identified visible top management commitment and skills/training 

for employees with disabilities as the most effective 

means of reducing these remaining barriers to employment or advancement of people with disabilities. 

■ Almost nine out of ten respondents reported that 

the agency has a grievance or dispute resolution process to deal with disability and accommodation issues. 

Supervisor training and resources on ADA/

accommodation/disability issues

■ Nine out of ten respondents reported having had 

some formal disability civil rights training as a Federal supervisor, with approximately half of those who 

received training receiving between one to 15 hours 

of training. This training was most often provided as a 

part of general employment discrimination or diversity 

training, or of general supervisory/management training. Supervisors who had employees with disabilities 

were significantly more likely to have received training.

■ Supervisors’ top three choices for more information 

included: accommodations for mental illness, more information about the accommodation process generally, 

and the special hiring authorities. 

■ Respondents saw making disability employment a 

mandatory element of management training as the 

most effective incentive to encourage disability nondiscrimination related training.

■ Supervisors surveyed were asked which resources 

they most often used to help resolve issues. About a 

third reported using HR staff/employee relations, EEO 

Office, and safety and ergonomic staff, while the Job 

Accommodation Network (JAN), disabilities services 

office, and the selective placement coordinator were 

used by less than one in ten.

■ Over half of the respondents reported having a 

formal disability management program with written 

policies and procedures, with blue-collar supervisors 

more likely to be aware of such a program.
12 

Presidential Orders to promote hiring/

accommodation of people with disabilities

■ Approximately three of four supervisors reported 

that the following would be helpful in implementing 

the Technology Nondiscrimination requirements of 

Section 508: The technical staff within their agency 

(i.e. chief information officer/helpdesk), centralized 

technical assistance on technology accessibility issues, and training procurement specialists in Section 

508 requirements. 

■ About a third of the supervisors were aware of the 

Federal initiative regarding telecommuting/telework 

for individuals with significant disabilities.

■ When asked whether, in their opinion, office-based 

full time positions that they currently supervised could 

be relocated to home-based or other off-site facilities, 

approximately one-third of the white-collar supervisors 

reported that this was possible. Less than six percent 

of the blue-collar supervisors saw this as possible. 

Supervisors of employees with disabilities were more 

likely to say they would be able to make current 

positions either home-based or split home-office.

■ When asked about the ability to develop full-time 

positions that could be performed from home or 

another off-site location, respondents indicated it 

would be easier to split such positions between home 

and office, rather than to develop full-time positions 

that would be dedicated to off-site employment. 

Supervisors of employees with disabilities viewed the 

development of these new positions as easier than did 

those without experience with employees with disabilities.

■ Approximately half of the white-collar supervisors 

indicated that it would be easy to accommodate an 

individual with a chronic illness or disability with the 

ability to work at home for one to two days each week 

or intermittently. Blue-collar supervisors were far less 

likely to say that this arrangement would be easy or 

even possible.

■ Respondents indicated that off-site technology support, guidelines for performance assessment of off-site 

workers, and formal flexplace agreements between 

off-site employees and supervisors would be helpful to 

them as a supervisor in creating or supporting homebased or off-site/flexplace/telecommuting employee 

position.

■ Three out of five respondents (60 percent) were unaware of the Federal initiative (Executive Order 13163) 

requiring the hiring of 100,000 qualified individuals 

with disabilities over the next five years. White collar supervisors and supervisors who had experience 

with employees with disabilities were more likely to 

be aware of this initiative. Of those reporting they 

were aware of this order, about two in five said that it 

had influenced their recruitment and hiring practices 

either “somewhat” or “a great deal.”

■ Two out of five supervisors surveyed reported being 

aware of the EEOC Guidelines for Federal agencies to 

establish written procedures to facilitate the provision of reasonable accommodation (Executive Order 

13164). Nearly half of those aware of this provision 

indicated that it had influenced their supervisory 

practice either “a great deal” or “somewhat.” The 

level of awareness and influence was higher for those 

who had experience supervising employees with disabilities.
13

Survey Results

T

his section of the report covers specific survey 

results. It discusses the following topics: supervisors’ report on accommodations for applicants, 

supervisors’ report on accommodation practices, 

opportunities for promotion/training for people with 

disabilities, supervisor experience in resolving disability discrimination issues, training on civil rightsrelated topics, disability management and workplace 

accommodations, and awareness and implementation 

to date of Executive Orders relating to promoting the 

employment of individuals with disabilities in the 

Federal workforce.

Supervisors Report on 

Accommodations for Applicants

Several survey questions dealt with inquiries about 

how involved supervisors were in the recruitment 

processes. Specifically, those surveyed were asked how 

many people they had hired in the past five years, 

how many of these were individuals with disabilities, 

and the extent to which the agency sets affirmative 

employment goals. In addition, supervisors were asked 

about their familiarity with particular hiring authorities for individuals with disabilities in the Federal 

government, as well as changes made to the applicant 

process to accommodate people with disabilities, and 

familiarity with applicant interviewing. 

Involvement in the Recruitment Process

Half of the supervisors reported being very or fairly 

involved in the recruitment process, with one-third 

(33 percent) saying they were “very involved.” Bluecollar supervisors were less likely to be involved in 

this process than white-collar supervisors (35 percent 

of white-collar supervisors compared to 28 percent of 

blue-collar supervisors reported being very involved). 

When asked to what extent the supervisor’s Federal 

agency set reasonable affirmative employment goals 

and made an effort to achieve them, over half (51 

percent) reported that their agency made a “great deal 

of effort,” with an additional 30 percent saying their 

agency had made “somewhat” of an effort on behalf of 

such goals.

When asked how many employees they had hired in 

the past five years (or since they became a Federal supervisor, whichever was less), four out of five reported 

having hired at least one employee. Two out of five 

supervisors (41 percent) reported having hired one to 

five individuals, 17 percent hired six to ten, and one 

in ten (11 percent) had hired more than 20 individuals over that time period. Of those hiring, one in 

three (32 percent) reported having hired an individual 

with a disability, with one in ten having hired three 

or more individuals with disabilities during that time 

period. 

Use of Special Hiring Authorities

Supervisors were asked about their familiarity with 

and the frequency of their use of special hiring 

authorities to facilitate recruitment and hiring of 

individuals with disabilities in the Federal workforce. 

More than one-half (56 percent) of those surveyed 

were “very” or “somewhat” familiar with the special 

provisions for hiring disabled veterans (this provision 

defines eligible veterans as those who are 30 percent disabled or more). However, fewer respondents 

were familiar with the provisions for hiring readers/

interpreters or other personal assistants for persons 

with disabilities (36 percent) or the special provision 

for hiring people with cognitive disabilities or people 

who have recovered from mental illness (30 percent). 

 Blue-collar supervisors tended to be less familiar 

with these special hiring authorities than white-collar 

supervisors. Of those who had some familiarity with 

special hiring authorities, three in ten (30 percent) 

reported frequently or occasionally using the provisions for disabled veterans, while one in four (25 percent) reported using the provision for hiring readers or 

interpreters, and one in five (22 percent) had used the 

special hiring authorities for people with cognitive 

disabilities, significant physical disabilities, or people 
14 

who have recovered from mental illness. Here again, 

there was a difference in the frequency of use of these 

hiring provisions between blue and white-collar supervisors in the Federal workforce. Blue-collar supervisors 

who were aware of the provisions for hiring disabled 

veterans were significantly more likely to have actually used them (43 percent compared to 28 percent of 

white-collar supervisors). 

Supervisors with experience supervising one or more 

employees with disabilities were much more likely 

to report greater familiarity with each of the special 

hiring authorities and more likely to have used them 

when familiar, compared to those without experience 

supervising employees with disabilities. There is an 

interesting continuum in the degree of familiarity 

with these authorities, from those not supervising 

employees with disabilities, supervising one or two 

employees with a disability, and supervising three or 

more employees with disabilities. As experience with 

the supervision of a person with a disability increases, 

so does familiarity with the Federal hiring authorities 

(see Chart 1).

Pre-Employment Accommodations Made

Those surveyed were asked about the changes they 

had made for recruitment and pre-employment screening processes across four different types of accommodations, including changing questions asked in 

interviews, making information accessible for a person 

with a visual or learning impairment, making information accessible for a hearing-impaired person, and 

making interview locations accessible to people with 

physical disabilities (mobility impairments). Two out 

of five (41 percent) had made all four accommodations, while approximately a quarter (28 percent) had 

not made any of the accommodations. Each of these 

changes was made by approximately half of the superChart 1

Supervisor Awareness of Federal Hiring Authorities, 

by Number of Employees with Disabilities Supervised

For hiring people with 

cognitive disabilities, 

significant physical 

disabilities, or people 

who have recovered 

from mental illness

For hiring readers/interpreters and other personal

assistants for employees

with disabilities

For hiring disabled

veterans (30 percent

disabled or more)

Source: Survey of the Federal Government on Supervisor Practices in Employment of People with

Disabilities. Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities/Cornell University, 2002.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

48%

27%

17%

29%

12%

6%

16%

7%

3%

No employees with disabilities

1 or 2 employees with disabilties

3 or more employees with disabilties
15

visors surveyed (range: 53-60 percent). The majority 

of the remainder indicated never having had to make 

these changes because they had not been requested. 

Less than two percent said they had been unable to 

provide the accommodation. 

Of those supervisors who reported having made 

such changes in the recruitment and pre-employment screening processes, the majority reported that 

making such changes was easy or very easy. The area 

thought to be the easiest to make an accommodation was making interview locations accessible to 

people with physical disabilities, reported as easy or 

very easy by nine out of ten respondents (91 percent) 

who had made this change. Similarly, four out of 

five respondents found changing questions asked in 

interviews to facilitate pre-employment screening for 

individuals with disabilities to be easy or very easy 

(80 percent). 

Making information accessible for a person with a 

visual or learning impairment was most difficult, being 

reported as difficult or very difficult by approximately 

one in four respondents (24 percent). Making information accessible for a person with a hearing impairment 

was also seen as difficult, reported as difficult or very 

difficult by 17 percent of respondents with experience 

in making such changes. 

Familiarity with Interview 

Considerations and Accommodations

Respondents were given a list of considerations in the 

applicant interview process, and asked how familiar 

they were with each (see Table 1). Almost threequarters of the respondents reported being familiar 

or very familiar with framing questions to applicants 

about the ability to perform specific job tasks rather 

than about disability (72 percent), and knowing 

when to ask an applicant about how she or he would 

Familiar Neither Unfamiliar

or very familiar nor or very

familiar unfamiliar unfamiliar

Framing questions to applicants about the ability to perform 

specific job tasks rather than about disability 72% 12% 16%

Knowing when to ask an applicant about how s/he would perform 

specific job tasks 71 13 16

Restrictions on eliciting information about medical issues affecting 

applicant’s health and safety on the job. 65 13 21

Restrictions on obtaining medical examinations and medical

history information 60 12 29

Accessing sign language interpreters 49 13 37

Knowing when to test for illegal drugs 43 13 44

Using a teletypewriter (TTY) or relay service to set up interviews 38 11 50

Adapting print materials used in the interview to large print,

diskette, or Braille 36 14 50

Using a reader to assist a person with a learning disability or 

visual impairment 35 14 51

Note: Percent of all valid responses; n=1001,

less responses of “don’t know/refused” (5% or 

less of total responses).

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Table 1: 

Familiarity with Disability Employment Discrimination

(ADA) Interview Considerations and Accommodations

Source: Survey of the Federal Government on Supervisor Practices in

Employment of People with Disabilities. Presidential Task Force on

Employment of Adults with Disabilities/Cornell University, 2002.
16 

perform specific job tasks (71 percent). The areas 

where respondents indicated the least familiarity were 

in accommodating individuals with visual or hearing 

impairments, such as accessing sign language interpreters, using a tele-typewriter (TTY) or relay service 

to set up interviews, adapting print materials used 

in the interview (to large print, diskette or Braille), 

or using a reader to assist a person with a learning 

disability or visual impairment. Another area in which 

there was a higher degree of unfamiliarity was in 

knowing when to test for illegal drugs, reported by approximately two out of five supervisors (44 percent). 

Supervisors who had employees with disabilities were 

significantly more familiar (by ten percent or more) 

than those without experience with each of the applicant interviewing issues, except for “knowing when 

to test for illegal drugs.” 

There were also significant differences on these items 

between blue and white-collar supervisors. Blue-collar were significantly less familiar than white-collar 

supervisors with the four accommodations for persons 

with visual or hearing impairments. 

Supervisors Report on Accommodation Practices

Federal supervisors surveyed were asked a series of 

questions relating to their practices in making accommodations for applicants and employees with disabilities. A summary of the supervisors’ experience with 

accommodation is presented in Appendix C. Several 

questions were directed toward finding out about how 

accommodation is approached by the agency, asking 

whether or not there was a formal process for handling 

reasonable accommodation requests by employees 

with disabilities, and who makes the final decision 

regarding the provision of an accommodation. The supervisors were also asked about their experience with 

accommodations over the past five years, including 

the number of people they supervised and the types 

of disabilities these supervisees had. In addition, the 

survey asked about the supervisors’ experience with 

making specific accommodations to meet the needs of 

employees with disabilities.

The Accommodation Process

More than three-quarters (78 percent) of those 

responding to this supervisor survey reported that 

their agency had a formal process for handling accommodation requests. When asked who makes the final 

decision on the provision of an accommodation, the 

most common response was that the respondent as 

the supervisor, in consultation with their immediate 

supervisor, made this decision (29 percent). One out 

of five respondents indicated that they as the immediate supervisor of the employee made the decision 

(21 percent), or another manager or director did so 

(20 percent). Least often making the final decision on 

the provision of an accommodation (two percent of 

respondents or less) was the Disability Service Office, occupational safety/medical clinic staff, safety/

ergonomic staff, the agencies’ Equal Employment 

Opportunity (EEO) staff, legal counsel (internal or 

external), or disability management/benefits staff (see 

Appendix C, Respondent Demographics). Supervisors 

with experience supervising one or more employees 

with disabilities were twice as likely to report that 

they, as the immediate supervisor, made/would make 

the final accommodation decision, than those without experience (26 percent compared to 13 percent). 

Those without such experience were more likely to 

say the final decision would fall to another manager/

director (25 percent compared to 17 percent).

Supervisor Experience Making Accommodations 

To get a sense of the number of accommodation 

requests made to the supervisors surveyed, an initial 

question asked how many accommodation requests 

had been received by the supervisors responding 

to the survey over the past five years (or their tenure as a Federal supervisor, whichever was less). In 

terms of their own experience in dealing directly with 

accommodation requests, half (50 percent) of the 

supervisors had received at least one accommodation 

request over the past five years. Slightly over a third 

(36 percent) had received one to three requests, one 

in ten (11 percent) had received four to ten requests, 

and only four percent received more than ten re-
17

quests. Six supervisors reported receiving over 40 

requests, which were often multiple accommodations 

for a single individual (i.e. sign language interpreters 

at each staff meeting for a deaf employee).

Three out of five supervisors (60 percent) reported 

supervising employees with disabilities during the last 

five years. Specifically, 40 percent reported supervising 

one or two employees with disabilities, 11 percent reported three or four, with the remaining nine percent 

reporting five or more employees with disabilities 

(40 percent reported no employees with disabilities). Overall, nearly two thirds (64 percent) of the 

supervisors surveyed had supervised at least one 

employee(s) with a disability and/or had received at 

least one accommodation request over the past five 

years or their tenure as a Federal supervisor (whichever was less). 

Supervisors were also asked which types of people 

with disabilities they supervised, classifying the disabilities according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) targeted disability categories.6

 Over half (56 percent) of the supervisors had 

supervised at least one employee with an EEOC targeted disability. It is interesting to note the breadth 

of experience the respondents had with different types 

of disabilities. About one in five (22 percent) had 

experience in supervising a person with one type of 

EEOC targeted disability, 14 percent had experience 

with two, and 18 percent had experience supervising 

individual(s) with three or more types of targeted disabilities. The four types of disabilities most often noted by the supervisors were musculoskeletal disorders 

(i.e. back, repetitive motion injuries, etc.) (28 percent), hearing impairment (20 percent), visual impairment (19 percent) and genetic/physical/neurological 

conditions affecting limbs and/or spine (19 percent) 

(see Appendix C). Differences were found between 

Never needed to

No, not make this

Yes able to accommodation

Advocated to make existing facilities accessible to employees with 

disabilities (restrooms, door entrances, hallways, etc) 53% -- 47%

Modified work environment (orthopedic chair, lower desk, etc.) 48 -- 52

Acquired or modified equipment or devices 47 -- 52

Restructured jobs or modified work hours 45 -- 54

Made parking or transportation accommodations 41 -- 58

Provided written job instructions 31 -- 69

Changed supervisory methods 29 -- 70

Provided qualified readers or interpreters (including personal assistants) 27 -- 73

Acquired or modified training materials 20 -- 79

Made reassignment to vacant positions 17 2 81

Provided a job coach 17 -- 82

Note: Percent of all valid responses; n=1001,

less responses of “don’t know/refused“(5% or 

less of total responses).

-- less than one percent.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Table 2: 

Accommodations Made for Employees With Disabilities

Source: Survey of the Federal Government on Supervisor Practices in

Employment of People with Disabilities. Presidential Task Force on

Employment of Adults with Disabilities/Cornell University, 2002.

 6 http://www.opm.gov/feddata/demograp.htm
18 

blue and white-collar supervisors in certain types of 

disabilities. Specifically, white-collar supervisors were 

more likely to have supervised a person with a visual 

impairment, or with a genetic/physical/neurological 

conditions. Blue-collar supervisors were more likely to 

have supervised in their labor force individuals with 

mental retardation and missing extremities. 

Kinds of Accommodations Made

Respondents were asked if they or their agency had 

made accommodations for an employee they supervised. Three quarters of the respondents indicated 

that at least one accommodation had been made for 

an employee they supervised. It is interesting to note 

that this is a higher proportion than those reporting 

receiving accommodation requests (50 percent). This 

difference may be due to the fact that these accommodation questions were not limited to the past five 

years and also include accommodations made without 

the employee making a request. Nearly half of all supervisors surveyed (49 percent), showed considerable 

breadth of experience, having made four or more difNot Not

Resources aware of needed Helpful1

Central human resource personnel (Department wide) 30% 15% 56% 79%

Employee Assistance Program 30 4 67 74

Servicing human resource personnel 

(sub-agency or unit level) 28 18 54 83

Safety/ergonomic staff 28 19 53 84

EEO office 23 5 73 75

Occupational health/medical clinic staff 22 16 62 83

Disability management/benefits staff 14 32 54 83

External health care provider 13 16 70 57

State vocational rehabilitation agencies 9 16 74 81

Disabilities Services Office 

(i.e. CAP, COAST, TARGET Center) 8 48 44 83

Disabled Employee Advisory Group 6 46 48 84

Local independent living centers or other disability 

organizations 5 18 77 74

Selective Placement Coordinator 5 42 53 81

Job Accommodation Network (toll-free number) 3 47 50 83

Note: Percent of all valid responses; n=1001

less responses of “don’t know/refused” (5% or 

less of total responses).

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

1Helpfulness rated on a 1-5 scale with 

1 being very helpful and 5=not at all helpful

(Helpful=1,2 Undecided=3 Not Helpful=4,5.)

IF USED, WAS

USED NOT USED IT HELPFUL?

Source: Survey of the Federal Government on

Supervisor Practices in Employment of People with

Disabilities. Presidential Task Force on Employment

of Adults with Disabilities/Cornell University, 2002.

Table 3. 

Resources Used for Accommodation Assistance
19

ferent types of accommodations of the 11 asked about 

in the survey (see Table 2). The only individual accommodation that was made by over half the supervisors 

(53 percent) was that of advocating to make existing 

facilities accessible to employees with disabilities, 

such as restrooms, door entrances, hallways, etc. 

Almost half (48 percent) of the responding supervisors 

reported modifying a work environment (such as by 

purchasing an orthopedic chair, lowering a desk, etc.). 

Fewer than one in five supervisors reported making 

the accommodations of providing a job coach, or 

reassignment to vacant positions (each by 17 percent 

of respondents). The vast majority of those supervisors who had not made a specific accommodation 

responded they did not do so because they “never 

needed to.” Typically, less than one percent of the 

supervisors reported they were “not able to” provide 

an accommodation, with two percent reporting being 

unable to provide “reassignment to vacant positions.” 

There were several interesting and statistically significant differences between white-collar and bluecollar supervisors in the use of three accommodations. 

Blue-collar supervisors were more likely to report 

using reassignment to a vacant position as an accommodation, whereas a higher number of white-collar 

supervisors reported use of the accommodations of 

acquiring and modifying equipment or devices than 

blue-collar supervisors.

Accommodation Resources Used and Found Helpful

Supervisors were asked about their use of 14 specific 

accommodation resources. Nearly three out of five had 

used at least one of these 14 resources. The majority 

of those who used resources utilized multiple sources, 

with 36 percent reporting having used one or two, 34 

percent used three or four, and 31 percent used five 

or more of the 14 resources. The most commonly used 

resources included the Human Resource personnel 

at the central (30 percent) and servicing/subagency 

level (28 percent), as well as the employee assistance 

program (30 percent) and the safety/ergonomics staff 

(28 percent) (see Table 3).

If a resource was not used, three options were available: “not aware of,” “aware but not needed” and 

“aware but not helpful.” “Aware but not helpful” was 

reported by fewer than one percent of respondents. Of 

special interest is that nearly half (42–48 percent) 

of the supervisors were not aware of the following 

resources: the Job Accommodation Network (JAN), 

disabilities services office (e.g., CAP, COAST, TARGET 

center), disabled employee advisory groups, and selective placement coordinators. White-collar supervisors 

were significantly less likely than blue-collar supervisors to be aware of the safety/ergonomics staff for 

accommodation assistance (79 percent compared to 

91 percent), but were more likely to be aware of State 

Vocational Rehabilitation agencies than the blue-collar supervisors (86 percent compared to 74 percent). 

Interestingly, supervisors with experience supervising 

employees with disabilities were not significantly more 

familiar with these accommodations than those who 

had not supervised any employees with disabilities. 

However, they were more aware than those without 

experience of the following resources: Independent 

Living Centers (87 percent compared to 79 percent), 

State Vocational Rehabilitation agencies (85 percent 

compared to 78 percent) and external health care (87 

percent compared to 81 percent) as resources.

Supervisors were asked how helpful the resources were 

if they had used them. Virtually all of the resources 

were considered to be helpful, with at least three 

quarters of the “users” rating them at four or five 

(with five being very helpful and one being not helpful at all). The single exception was external health 

providers, which only 57 percent found as helpful and 

nearly one of five (19 percent) said were “not helpful.” 

Opportunities for Promotion/Training 

for People with Disabilities

Supervisors were asked what they see as the continuing barriers to the hiring and advancement of 

people with disabilities, and ways to address these 

barriers. In addition, they were asked about the various means they used to facilitate access to training 

and other benefits of employment for employees with 

disabilities. 
20 

Barriers to Hiring and Promotion 

of People with Disabilities

Respondents were presented with seven possible barriers 

to the employment and advancement of people with 

disabilities. No respondent indicated that there were no 

barriers for people with disabilities; all felt that one 

or more of the listed barriers were in fact a problem 

(See Chart 2). The most frequently noted barriers were 

felt to be in the work environment or in the training 

or work experience of the person with the disability.

Respondents indicated that there were significant barriers for people with disabilities in the work environment, including a supervisor’s knowledge of which accommodations to make (23 percent), accommodations 

not being provided when needed (21 percent), and 

attitudes and stereotypes about people with disabilities (20 percent). Respondents also identified barriers 

that result from inadequacies in the individual with a 

disability’s preparation for employment. These potential barriers to employment and advancement were a 

lack of related experience in the person with a disability (48 percent) and a lack of requisite skills and 

training in the person with a disability (43 percent). 

Interestingly, cost of accommodations (11 percent), 

additional cost of supervision (10 percent) and the 

cost of training (8 percent) were least likely to be 

seen as remaining barriers to employment for people 

with disabilities. Surprisingly, 

the perception of these barriers was not significantly 

different between supervisors with experience supervising employees with disabilities and supervisors 

without employees with disabilities.

Possible Ways to Reduce Barriers in the Workplace

Supervisors were also asked their perceptions of the 

degree of effectiveness of eleven different items in 

reducing barriers to employment or advancement 

for persons with disabilities within their respective 

agencies (See Table 4). The majority (over 50 percent) 

reported all eleven items would be effective (rated as 

1 or 2 on a five point scale where 1 is “very effective” 

Chart 2

Barriers to Employment or Advancement of People with Disabilities

Cost of training 8%

Additional cost of surpervision 10%

Cost of accommodations 11%

Lack of established policy/procedures 17%

Additional travel costs 17%

Attitudes/stereotypes 20%

Accommodation not provided when needed 21%

A supervisor’s knowledge of which accommodation to make 23%

Lack of requisite skills and training (of the person with a disability) 43%

Lack of related experience ( of the person with a disability) 48%

Other 15%

Source: Survey of the Federal Government on Supervisor Practices in

Employment of People with Disabilities. Presidential Task Force on

Employment of Adults with Disabilities/Cornell University, 2002.

Note: Percent of all valid responses; n=1001,

less responses of “don’t know/refused” (5% or 

less of total responses).
21

and 5 is “very ineffective”). More than four out of 

five supervisors reported that visible top management 

commitment (85 percent) and skills training for employees with disabilities (83 percent) would be effective means of barrier reduction. Other means considered highly effective include mentoring (78 percent), 

staff training (76 percent), and on-site consultation 

or technical assistance (76 percent).

There was a significant difference between blue and 

white-collar supervisors in the perceived effectiveTable 4. 

Means to Reduce Barriers to Employment

% considering

Means of barrier reduction it effective1

Visible top management commitment 85%

Skills training for employees with disabilities 83

Mentoring 78

Staff training 76

On-site consultation or technical assistance 76

Changing co-worker/supervisor attitudes 

towards persons with disabilities 69

Special budget allocation/centralized 

accommodation fund 67

Development and input from a disability 

advisory group 62

Include affirmative action and accommodation items for persons with disabilities 

in supervisor performance appraisals 60

Departmental reward/recognition 

(ie. A certificate acknowledging outstanding 

performance) 59

Short-term outside assistance with job 

supervision (e.g. outside job coach) 57

Note: Percent of all valid responses; n=1001, less responses 

of “don’t know/refused” (5% or less of total responses).

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

1Effectiveness rated 1=Very effective to 5=Very ineffective 

% Effective=1 & 2.

Source: Survey of the Federal Government on Supervisor Practices

in Employment of People with Disabilities. Presidential Task Force

on Employment of Adults with Disabilities/Cornell University, 2002.

ness of three items: development and input from a 

Disability Advisory Committee, including affirmative 

action and accommodation items for persons with 

disabilities in supervisor performance appraisals, and 

departmental reward/recognition (such as a certificate 

acknowledging outstanding performance). In all three 

items, blue-collar supervisors perceived these as significantly more effective than white-collar supervisors 

did by 12 to 15 percent. 

Supervisors were also asked if they had used any of 

three items (wheelchair access, communication access 

for those with vision impairments, and communication 

access for those with hearing impairments) to ensure 

that people with disabilities they supervised would 

have access to meetings, promotional and social 

opportunities. The most often used was wheelchair 

access, with three of five respondents (61 percent) 

indicating use of this. Less frequently reported was 

communication access for the deaf or hard of hearing 

(45 percent) and communication access for persons 

with visual or learning disabilities (38 percent). 

Supervisor Experience in Resolving 

Disability Discrimination Issues

Supervisors were asked several questions relating to 

their experience with any disability discrimination 

issues arising in their workplace. Specifically, they 

were asked whether their agency had a grievance or 

dispute resolution process to deal with disability and 

accommodation issues, and whether they as a Federal 

supervisor had ever experienced a formal disability 

complaint. In addition, they were asked the degree of 

ease or difficulty with which they could use a number 

of resources and approaches, should an accommodation dispute arise.

Supervisor Experience of Disability 

Discrimination Claims

Almost nine in ten responding supervisors (87 percent) reported that their agency had a grievance or 

dispute resolution process to deal with disability and 

accommodation issues. Supervisors surveyed were 

presented with a list of seven possible specific disability claims that could be filed under disability civil 
22 

Helpful

or very

Resource helpful

HR Staff/Employee Relations 44% 82%

Your agency’s EEO office 33 77

Your safety/ergonomics staff 33 85

Union representative 25 60

Agency legal counsel 23 85

Disability management/benefits staff 19 78

State Vocational Rehabilitation agencies, DBTACs, ILCs, 

other disability organizations 16 88

U.S. EEOC 16 78

Other Federal agencies or professional society or 

business agency (eg OPM, MSPB, SHRM, IPMA) 14 81

Dispute resolution center/mediator 11 71

Disabilities Services Office 8 79

Selective Placement Coordinator 8 77

Job Accommodation Network (toll-free number) 4 83

Note: Percent of all valid responses; n=1001,

less responses of “don’t know/refused” (5% or 

less of total responses).

Percentages may not total 100% 

due to rounding.

Table 5: 

Resources Used to Help Resolve ADA Issues

Source: Survey of the Federal Government

on Supervisor Practices in Employment of

People with Disabilities. Presidential Task

Force on Employment of Adults with

Disabilities/Cornell University, 2002.

DO YOU IF USED, WAS

UTILIZE? IT HELPFUL?

rights legislation, including wrongful discharge, failure 

to provide reasonable accommodation, failure to hire, 

harassment, unfair discipline, failure to promote, and 

suspension. Eighty-eight percent of respondents had 

never had 

a claim filed against them. Less than five percent 

reported any one individual specific claim type except for one. A claim of failure to provide reasonable 

accommodation was reported as having been experienced by seven percent of supervisors surveyed. 

Approaches and Resources Used to 

Resolve Accommodation Disputes

Supervisors were presented with five possible resources or approaches to dealing with an accommodation dispute, should one arise, and asked how easy 

or difficult using this approach would be for them. 

The five resources or approaches presented were as 

follows: discussing accommodation needs with the 

individual; accessing a resource person to help with 

accommodation issues (HR personnel, EEO personnel, 

health and safety personnel, ergonomics personnel, 

Employee Relations personnel, etc.); having access 

to a person trained in alternative dispute resolution (ADR); effectively using the existing dispute/

complaint resolution process; getting sufficient training on dispute resolution approaches; and determining 

the most appropriate dispute resolution process. Approximately three-quarters or more of the individuals 

reported that using each accommodation dispute approach or resource would be 

easy. Discussing accommodation needs with the individual with a disability was 

seen as the least difficult 

approach to use, with nine 

out of ten of respondents 

(92 percent) seeing this as 

easy to do. Determining the 

most appropriate dispute 

resolution process was seen 

as modestly more difficult, 

with approximately three 

out of four (73 percent) respondents seeing this as an 

easy approach to resolving 

an accommodation dispute 

should one arise.

The supervisors were also 

presented with 12 possible 

resources that could be 

used to help resolve disability employment civil 

rights issues (see Table 5).

Less than half of the respondents used any single 

resource for these purposes. 

The resources used by the 

largest number of super-
23

visors included: the HR Staff/Employee Relations (44 

percent), the agency’s Equal Employment Opportunity 

(EEO) office (33 percent), and the agency’s safety/

ergonomics staff (33 percent).

There was a significant difference between white and 

blue-collar supervisors on two items, with more whitecollar supervisors utilizing State Vocational Rehabilitation services (18 percent) compared to blue-collar 

supervisors (11 percent). There was also a significant 

difference between blue and white-collar supervisors 

on the use of legal counsel. One in four white-collar 

supervisors reported having used this resource (25 

percent), compared with 14 percent of blue-collar 

supervisors. The three least often used resources included: the Disabilities Services Office (8 percent), the 

Selective Placement Coordinator (8 percent), and the 

Job Accommodation Network (4 percent). No differences were found between supervisors with experience 

with employees with disabilities and those without 

this experience in their use of these resources.

Supervisors were also asked to rate the degree of helpfulness of those of the 12 resources they had used. 

All the resources were seen as helpful by more than 

three-quarters of their users with the exception of the 

dispute resolution center/mediator (71 percent found 

it helpful), and the union representative (60 percent).

Training on Civil Rights–Related Topics

A number of questions were asked to determine the 

extent of training that supervisors received on eleven 

specific topics related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act employment provisions. Supervisors were also asked whether 

they would like more information on each of these 

topics. Questions were also asked to get more specific information about the extent of training, how it 

was provided, the medium most often used to impart 

information, and their degree of helpfulness. Finally, 

respondents were asked how effective each of four 

different incentives would be in encouraging disability 

nondiscriminatory related training (including the ADA, 

disability employment, Rehabilitation Act, EEOC Guidance, and 508 compliance).

Disability Civil Rights Training Received

More than nine out of ten supervisors (92 percent) 

were trained in at least one of the eleven disability 

employment civil rights training areas asked about, 

and more than half had received training in eight of 

the eleven topics (see Table 6). On average, whitecollar supervisors had received training in six of the 

eleven civil rights topic areas as compared to slightly 

less than five for the blue-collar supervisors. The topics most often reported as the focus of training (by 

two-thirds to three-quarters of respondents) were nondiscrimination in the disciplinary process or termination (72 percent), non-discriminatory recruitment 

and hiring practices (71 percent), and disability 

awareness and/or sensitivity training (71 percent). 

The three areas in which supervisors had received 

comparatively less training were Section 508 training 

(28 percent), the special appointing/hiring authorities 

(26 percent), and accommodation for persons with 

mental or psychiatric disabilities (25 percent).

Supervisors who had employees with disabilities were 

significantly more likely to have received training 

in these six areas: non-discriminatory recruitment 

and hiring (75 percent for supervisors with experience compared to 65 percent for those without), the 

accommodation process (61 percent compared to 47 

percent), accommodation for mental disabilities (28 

percent compared to 21 percent), defining essential 

job functions (57 percent compared to 48 percent), 

disability awareness/sensitivity training (75 percent 

compared to 65 percent) and Section 508 (32 percent 

compared to 22 percent). 

Approximately four out of five (81 percent) supervisors 

surveyed indicated that they had received some formal 

training on the ADA or Rehabilitation Act, with onethird (35 percent) indicating that they had 16 or more 

hours of training. White-collar supervisors were significantly more likely to have received training in each 

of the topic areas, except for conflict resolution in the 

accommodation process. Supervisors with experience 

supervising three or more employees with disabilities 

reported 15 training hours on average, compared to 12 

hours for those with one or two disabled employees 

and nine training hours for those with no experience.
24 

Approximately four in five supervisors reported that 

the training on ADA and Rehabilitation Act topics they 

received as a Federal supervisor was provided as a part 

of a general supervisory/management (87 percent) or 

employment discrimination or diversity training (83 

percent). The next most commonly cited ways training 

had been provided was as a specialized focus on disability provided by Federal government staff experts 

(64 percent), or as a specialized focus on disability 

by an external consultant (41 percent). Supervisors 

of employees with disabilities were more likely to 

have received training from Federal Government staff 

experts (68 percent compared to 58 percent) and 

from external consultants (44 percent compared to 36 

percent) than those who had not had experience with 

employees with disabilities.

The topics on which the majority of supervisors (50 

percent or more) indicated wanting more information were as follows (in descending order of interest): 

special appointing/hiring authorities, accommodations 

for persons with mental or psychiatric disabilities, 

the accommodation process, Section 508 training, 

and equal access in promotional opportunities and 

training. Blue-collar supervisors were more likely than 

white-collar supervisors to express interest in additional information (significantly so in eight of the 

eleven areas). This perhaps reflects a desire to make 

up for the fact that they had received less training 

than their white-collar supervisor counterparts. 

All All

supervisors Blue White supervisors Blue White

Non-discrimination in the disciplinary process or 

termination 72% 63% 74% * 43% 59% 39% *

Non-discriminatory recruitment and hiring practices 71 60 74 * 48 59 45 *

Disability awareness and/or sensitivity training 71 62 73 * 46 56 43 *

Confidentiality requirements of medical information 67 61 68 * 42 53 40 *

Equal access in promotional opportunities & training 60 48 63 * 51 66 48 *

Conflict resolution in the accommodation process 57 61 56 50 54 49

The accommodation process 55 38 59 * 58 70 56 *

Defining essential job functions 53 33 58 * 49 64 46 *

Section 508 training 28 16 31 * 57 62 56 *

The special appointing/hiring authorities 26 17 28 * 64 69 63 *

Accommodation for mental disabilities 25 16 27 * 63 71 61 *

Note: Percent of all valid responses; 1001 for total, 

810 for white-collar, and 191 for blue-collar less 

responses of “don’t know/refused”(5% or less of

total responses).

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

*Chi-square test of association, comparing 

blue vs. white collar supervisors statistically 

significant at the p≤0.05 level.

RE C E I V E D T R A I N I N G ? MO R E IN F O R M AT I O N?

Source: Survey of the Federal Government on Supervisor Practices in

Employment of People with Disabilities. Presidential Task Force on

Employment of Adults with Disabilities/Cornell University, 2002.

Table 6.

Training on ADA and Rehabilitation 

Act-Related Topics by Collar
25

Incentives to Encourage Disability-Related Training

The supervisors were asked how effective each of a 

number of incentives would be in encouraging attendance at disability nondiscrimination related training (including Americans with Disabilities Act topics, disability employment, Rehabilitation Act, EEOC 

Guidance, and Section 508 compliance). The incentive 

seen as most effective was making ADA/disability employment a mandatory element of management training, selected by almost four out of five respondents 

(79 percent). The next most often selected incentives 

were paying ADA training costs (66 percent), and 

making ADA training available on the Internet 

(56 percent). Departmental reward or recognition for 

receiving training was seen as the least effective of 

the four alternatives, but still seen as effective by 

over two out of five respondents (44 percent marked 

it as effective). Interestingly, blue-collar supervisors 

were significantly more likely to view departmental 

reward or recognition as effective (60 percent) than 

white-collar supervisors (40 percent).

Accommodation Informational 

and Organizational Resources Used

Those surveyed were also asked about the resources 

that they used to address disability civil rights-related 

issues, across seven alternatives, including: print or 

video materials, on-site consultation/ training, web 

sites/listservs/EEOC homepage, organizational newsletters, telephone consultation/information hotlines, 

government-sponsored programs (i.e. IDEAS, FOSE), 

and employee-sponsored disability organizations in 

the supervisor’s department or agency. The resources 

reported most often used were video materials (reported as used by 42 percent of respondents) and 

on-site consultation/training (34 percent). Web 

sites/listservs/EEOC homepage, organizational newsletters, telephone consultation/information hotlines 

were used by approximately one in five respondents. 

Least-often used were government-sponsored programs (17 percent) and employee-sponsored disability 

organizations (13 percent). The lack of use of these 

particular resources may have been a function of lack 

of awareness of them, as one in three respondents or 

more indicated that they were not aware of either of 

these resources. 

Those surveyed were also asked about the helpfulness 

of each resource they had used to address disability 

civil rights-related issues. All the resources were seen 

as helpful by the majority of those who used them. 

The three resources most often viewed as helpful were 

telephone consultations/information hotlines (seen 

as helpful by 85 percent of respondents who had used 

them), on-site consultation/training (84 percent), and 

web sites/listservs/EEOC homepage (81 percent). 

Disability Management and 

Workplace Accommodation

Disability management is a strategy that seeks to prevent disability from occurring in the workplace 

or, failing that, supports early intervention after 

the onset of a disability, in a way that promotes an 

organizational commitment to continued employment 

for employees wth functional work limitation. The 

goal of disability management is successful job maintenance, or facilitation of prompt return to work, for 

people with disabilities.7 

Fifty-four percent of respondents reported that their 

agency has a formal disability management or return to work program (one with written policies and 

procedures), with an additional 12 percent having an 

informal program. Blue-collar supervisors were significantly more likely to be aware of a program (formal or 

informal), than white-collar supervisors. 

Respondents whose agencies have either formal or informal disability management programs indicated that 

these programs contribute “a great deal” to implementation of disability nondiscrimination or civil rights 

laws, by either raising awareness of the importance 

of medical confidentiality (60 percent), raising acceptance of employees with disabilities (39 percent), 

raising supervisor awareness of the accommodation 

7

Akabas, S., Gates, L. & Galvin, D. (1992). Disability management: 

A complete system to reduce costs, increase productivity, meet 

employee needs, and ensure legal compliance. New York: AMACOM, 

p. 2. 
26 

process (36 percent), and providing an organizational 

structure for accommodations (31 percent). 

Awareness of and Implementation

to Date of Presidential Orders

Supervisors were queried about their perceptions of 

implementation to date of several Presidential Orders 

that relate to more effective recruitment and retention 

for individuals with disabilities in the Federal workforce. 

Inquiry was also made about other services and supports 

that would facilitate effective implementation of these 

equal employment opportunity provisions. Specifically, 

the areas which were asked about were as follows: the 

services/supports that will facilitate implementation 

of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (508 requires 

that electronic and information technology developed, 

procured, maintained, or used by the Federal government be accessible to people with disabilities); 

dedication of existing or development of new positions 

to facilitate off-site or telework for individuals with 

disabilities and general awareness of these provisions; 

awareness of the initiative of the Federal government 

to hire 100,000 employees with disabilities over a five 

year period; the specific agency’s plan to implement 

this order to hire employees with disabilities; and 

supervisor knowledge of whether written procedures to 

facilitate the provision of reasonable accommodation 

were in place and being implemented in their respective agencies. In addition, supervisors were asked to 

what extent the new accommodation procedures 

influence their own supervisory practice. 

Implementation of Section 508

As mentioned above, Section 508 requires that electronic and information technology developed, procured, maintained, or used by the Federal government 

be accessible to people with disabilities.8 The Center 

for Information Technology Accommodation (CITA) in 

the U.S. General Services Administration’s Office of 

Government-wide Policy has been charged with the 

task of educating Federal employees and building the 

infrastructure necessary to support Section 508 implementation.

Those surveyed were asked how helpful each of five 

possible resources or services might be to them as 

supervisors in implementing the technology nondiscrimination requirements of Section 508. The five 

resources were as follows: centralized technology 

procurement which screens for these criteria, training 

procurement specialists in Section 508 requirements, 

centralized technical assistance on technology accessibility issues, unit specific expertise/ technical assistance on technology accessibility issues, and access 

to the technical staff within the supervisor’s agency 

(i.e. Chief Information Officer (CIO)/Help Desk). All of 

these items were perceived as helpful by at least seven out of ten respondents. Those items seen as most 

helpful were access to the technical assistance staff 

within the given supervisor’s agency (79 percent), 

centralized technical assistance on technology accessibility issues (77 percent), and training procurement 

specialists in Section 508 requirements (76 percent). 

Off-site/Telework for Federal Employees with Disabilities

Another Executive Order deals with the identification 

or development of home-based, off-site, or telework 

opportunities for individuals with disabilities in the 

Federal workforce. This survey has afforded an opportunity to explore the potential of this initiative and 

its ease of implementation from the supervisors’ perspective. Specifically, supervisors were asked if they 

currently had any full-time employees who worked 

primarily from home or from another off-site location, 

and whether any of the existing office-based positions that they currently supervise could be relocated 

to home-based or other off-site facilities, either on a 

full-time basis or split between home and office-based 

location in a given week. In addition, these supervisors were asked how easy or difficult it would be for 

them to develop full-time positions that would be 

performed either exclusively at home or split between 

home and on-site locations. Significant differences 

in responses were found throughout these questions 

between white and blue-collar supervisors. 

Survey respondents were asked about their awareness 

of the Federal initiative regarding telecommuting/

8 telework for individuals for significant disabilities. For further information, see www.section508.gov.
27

Nearly 40 percent were aware of this provision. Whitecollar supervisors were significantly more likely to 

be aware of this initiative (41 percent), compared to 

blue-collar supervisors (27 percent). Supervisors who 

had experience supervising disabled employees were 

more likely to report awareness of this initiative (42 

percent), compared to those without experience (32 

percent).

Overall, thirteen percent of the respondents indicated 

they currently supervise full-time employees who 

work primarily from home or another off-site location. 

White-collar supervisors, however, were significantly 

more likely to have this situation than their blue-collar supervisors counterparts (16 percent compared to 

three percent). 

These supervisors were also asked whether, in their 

opinion, any of the office-based positions that they 

currently supervise could be relocated to home-based 

or other off-site facilities, either on a full-time basis 

or split between home and office-based locations in 

a given week. Approximately three out of five (58 

percent) of respondents indicated that they would 

be able, in their opinion, to take positions that they 

currently supervised and split them between home or 

off-site and in-office functions during a given week. 

Supervisors said that split time between off-site and 

on-site positions was more feasible than full-time off 

site, with only one in three supervisors (32 percent) 

responding affirmatively to the full-time option. It is 

important to note that blue-collar supervisors were far 

less likely than white-collar supervisors to view either 

of these options as being feasible given their respective workforces. Only one in seven (14 percent) bluecollar supervisors saw split positions as a possibility, 

and only six percent believed it would be possible to 

relocate full-time positions. Supervisors of employees 

with disabilities were more likely to say they would 

be able to make current positions home-based (37 

percent compared to 25 percent) or split home-office 

positions (64 percent compared to 50 percent) and 

develop new positions more easily. 

Supervisors were also asked how easy or difficult it 

would be to develop such positions. Again, respondents indicated that developing jobs that were split 

between home and office would be easier than trying 

to create full-time off site positions (32 percent saying very easy/easy for split time, compared to 14 percent for full-time at home). White-collar supervisors 

were significantly more likely to view the development 

of these positions as easy or very easy, whether 

full-time at home or split between home and office, 

than were blue-collar supervisors. Supervisors with 

employees with disabilities were also more likely to 

view developing positions to work at home as easier, 

than those who were not supervising an employee 

with a disability. Over two thirds (68 percent) of the 

blue-collar supervisors and a quarter (24 percent) of 

the white-collar supervisors said they had no relevant 

full time off site positions that they could develop (65 

percent and 14 percent respectively regarding split 

positions). 

An effort was also made in this survey to identify 

which structures and supports might best facilitate the 

redesign of existing positions or creation of new ones 

that could be home-based or telework employment 

opportunities for people with disabilities. Specifically, 

those who indicated they had potential positions (79 

percent of the 1,001 supervisors surveyed) were asked 

to make a judgment about the degree of helpfulness 

of seven different possible supports to supervision of 

telework employees, as follows: off-site technology 

support; guidelines for performance assessment of 

off-site workers; formal flexi-place agreement between 

off-site employee and supervisor; training for supervisors of off-site workers; initial and ongoing training 

for off-site workers; having guidelines for the design 

of off-site work; guidelines for supervision of off-site 

workers; and training for coworkers of off-site workers. 

In general, the majority of supervisors (57 percent or 

more) rated all of these possible structures or supports 

for off-site work as helpful (see Table 7). The three 

rated as most helpful were off-site technology support 

(75 percent), guidelines for performance assessment 

of off-site workers (71 percent), and formal flexi-place 

agreements between off-site employees and supervisors (71 percent). Again, there was a significant 

difference in the perceptions of white and blue-collar 
28 

supervisors about the potential helpfulness of these, 

with white-collar supervisors seeing them as significantly more helpful than blue-collar supervisors, with 

a 20-30 percent difference on each individual item.

The survey respondents were also asked about how 

easy or difficult it would be to accommodate an individual with a chronic illness or disability (for example, 

someone who has cancer treatment, physical therapy, 

dialysis, or a mobility impairment) with the ability 

to work at home for one to two days each week or 

intermittently. Approximately half of the responding 

white-collar supervisors (47 percent) indicated that it 

would be easy to provide this accommodation, compared to less than six percent of the blue-collar supervisors. The majority of the blue-collar supervisors (57 

percent) indicated that they had no positions in which 

this accommodation would be possible (compared 

to 11 percent of the white-collar supervisors), with 

nearly a quarter (24 percent) responding it would be 

very difficult (compared to 14 percent of the whitecollar supervisors). As expected, supervisors who had 

experience with employees with disabilities viewed 

making this accommodation as easier than those who 

were inexperienced (44 percent said it would be very 

easy/easy compared to 32 percent of those not supervising an employee with a disability). 

Awareness and Implementation of Federal Government 

Hiring Executive Order

Two questions were asked of survey respondents to 

find out more about their awareness and current 

agency implementation of the Executive Order 13163, 

which requires the Federal government to hire 100,000 

qualified individuals with disabilities over the next 

five years. 

When asked about awareness of the Executive Order, 

almost two in five (38 percent) indicated an awareness of it. The degree of awareness was significantly 

Total Blue n=88 White n=703

Off-site technology support 75% 48% 78% *

Guidelines for performance assessment of off-site workers 71 43 75 *

Formal flexiplace agreement between off-site employee 

and supervisor 71 47 74 *

Training for supervisors of off-site workers 66 39 70 *

Initial and ongoing training for off-site workers 66 45 68 *

Guidelines for the design of off-site work 66 45 68 *

Guidelines for supervision of off-site workers 65 30 69 *

Training for coworkers of off-site workers 57 39 59 *

Note: Percent of all valid responses; 1001 for Total, 

810 for white-collar, and 191 for blue-collar less 

responses of “don’t know/refused” (5% or less of

total responses).

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. 

Helpfulness rated on a 1-5 scale with 1=very 

helpful and 5=not at all helpful Helpful=1,2. 

*Chi-square test of association, comparing Blue vs. 

White collar respondents statistically significant

at the p<0.05 level.

Source: Survey of the Federal Government on Supervisor Practices in

Employment of People with Disabilities. Presidential Task Force on

Employment of Adults with Disabilities/Cornell University, 2002.

HE L P F U L (O F T H O S E W H O R E P O R T E D P O S S I B L E P O S I T I O N S )

Table 7.

Helpfulness of resources in supporting homebased or tele-work employment opportunities
29

higher among white-collar supervisors (42 percent) 

compared to blue-collar supervisors (24 percent).

Those surveyed were also asked to what extent their 

agency’s plan to implement this executive order has 

influenced their recruitment and hiring practices to 

date. Of those who indicated that they were aware of 

the order at all (n=329), again approximately two in 

five (38 percent) indicated that this had influenced 

their hiring decisions a great deal or somewhat. Su-

pervisors with experience supervising employees with 

disabilities were more aware of this order (43 percent 

compared to 30 percent) and also more likely to say 

it had an impact on their hiring decisions (43 percent 

compared to 25 percent), than those with out any 

employees with disabilities.

Awareness and Implementation of Executive Order to 

Establish Written Accommodation Procedures

Several survey items dealt with supervisor awareness 

of and also the influence on supervisory practice of 

the EEOC Guidelines for Federal agencies to imple-

ment Executive Order 13164, establishing written 

procedures to facilitate the provision of reasonable 

accommodation. This requires that each Federal 

agency establish effective written procedures for 

processing requests for reasonable accommodation by 

employees and applicants with disabilities. Similar 

to their awareness of the Federal government hiring 

initiative discussed above, two out of five supervi-

sors (41 percent), reported awareness of these EEOC 

guidelines requiring agencies to develop a written 

accommodation procedure. Nearly half (47 percent) 

of respondents aware of this provision indicated that 

it had influenced their supervisory practices “a great 

deal or somewhat.” Again, supervisors with experience 

with employees with disabilities were more likely to 

be aware of these guidelines (46 percent compared to 

34 percent) and reported that it had a greater influ-

ence on their practices (55 percent compared to 29 

percent), than those who did not supervise employees 

with disabilities.
30 

Summary and Implications

employees with disabilities within the U.S. Federal 

workforce. Overall, the number of employees immediately supervised by this group of supervisors was 

nearly 15,000, with the total number of employees supervised approaching 40,000. Since the purpose of the 

study was to assess the impact of these provisions on 

supervisory practice, the pool of survey respondents 

selected should provide us with a valid perspective on 

these issues.

This study confirms that supervisors in the Federal 

government play a critical role in the accommodation 

process for applicants and employees with disabilities 

in the Federal workforce. It explores how supervisors 

in the Federal government have responded to date to 

the Federal hiring authorities and other special provisions to facilitate employment of people with disabilities. It also investigates other ways to address the 

many challenges to the recruitment, hiring, retention, 

and career advancement of adults with disabilities in 

the Federal workforce that warrant consideration. This 

summary and implications section includes: a discussion of supervisor experience with accommodation to 

date, the Federal supervisor role in recruitment, ways 

to maximize opportunities for promotion and advancement for people with disabilities, resources most often 

used to resolve ADA issues, continuing training needs 

for supervisors on disability-related information, and 

ways to maximize implementation of the Presidential 

Orders to promote hiring and advancement of people 

with disabilities in the Federal workforce.

Supervisor Experience with

Recruitment and Accommodation

This study confirms the importance of the supervisory role in the accommodation process. Half of the 

super-visors had received at least one accommodation 

request over the past five years, over a third had 

received between one to three requests, and one in 

ten had received between four and ten requests. It is 

encouraging to note that more than three-quarters of 

Overview

This report identifies how Federal supervisors in the 17 

Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with 

Disabilities agencies are responding to the employment disability nondiscrimination requirements of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation 

Act, the Federal hiring authorities, and Presidential 

Orders issued in 2000 designed to promote employment and effective accommodation in the Federal 

workforce. The Task Force agencies account for over 

half of the total employees in the Executive Branch of 

the government, employing close to a million employees, including more than 63,000 employees with 

disabilities. These research results provide an opportunity for analysis of the policy and practice efforts of 

Federal agencies in recruiting and retaining persons 

with disabilities in Federal employment.

This is a significant study because it will help the Federal government assess the effectiveness of the recent 

Federal hiring authorities and other initiatives such as 

the Presidential Orders in stimulating hiring and accommodation of people with disabilities. In addition, 

it helps us to understand how the Federal workplace 

is responding to the over seven percent of all current 

civilian Executive Branch employees with disabilities.1 

The supervisors surveyed reported significant supervisory experience in the Federal government. Over 95 

percent of the supervisors surveyed had been with 

their agency five or more years, and fully half had 

more than ten years of experience as a Federal supervisor. Thus, most of those responding to the survey 

have significant experience within the Federal workforce during the implementation of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act, the special hiring authorities for 

people with disabilities, and the Presidential Orders to 

promote hiring and accommodation of applicants and 

1 Source: Demographic Profile of the Federal Workforce. September 

20, 2000 (unpublished). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management.
31

supervisors surveyed reported that their agency had 

a formal process for handling accommodation requests. Also of interest is that fully half of the supervisors surveyed saw themselves as taking a central 

role in the accommodation decision-making process. 

Most commonly, the respondent as the supervisor, in 

consultation with their immediate supervisor, made 

this decision, followed by the respondent themselves 

as immediate supervisor of the employee. This result 

demonstrates the importance and influence of a supervisor in the accommodation process.

One of the purposes of this study is to assess supervisors’ awareness and use of the Federal hiring 

authorities for individuals with disabilities, including special hiring provisions for people with severe 

physical disabilities, mental retardation, psychiatric 

disabilities, disabled veterans, and the provision 

for the hiring of readers and interpreters and other 

personal assistants for employees with disabilities.2 

Results of this survey show that over half the supervisors had supervised at least one employee with an 

EEOC targeted disability.3 The types of disabilities 

most often reported by the supervisors surveyed were 

musculoskeletal disorders (i.e. back, repetitive motion 

injuries, etc.), hearing impairment, visual impairment, 

and genetic/physical/neurological conditions affecting 

limbs and/or spine. Fewer supervisors had experience 

with persons with cognitive disabilities (mental retardation) and psychiatric disabilities.

Most supervisors appear to be responsive to accommodation requests, with fewer than two percent 

saying they could not provide an accommodation. The 

vast majority of those who hadn’t made an accommodation had not needed to provide it. The types of 

accommodations reported by the largest number of 

supervisors were: advocating making existing facilities accessible, modifying the work environment, and 

acquiring or modifying equipment or devices. These 

are workplace accommodations that might address the 

accommodation needs of the populations most often 

supervised by this respondent pool—those with musculoskeletal disabilities, hearing and/or visual impairment, and conditions affecting limbs and/or spine. 

Supervisors were less likely to report accommodations 

targeted to individuals with hearing and vision impairments, such as providing qualified readers or interpreters, and acquiring or modifying training materials, but 

this may be a reflection of the wide range of severity 

of these disabilities. 

Both the lower frequency of use of accommodations 

targeted to those with vision and hearing impairments 

and the low use of job coaches are areas that merit 

further investigation. Effective recruitment and retention of individuals who are blind, deaf, or have mental 

retardation (cognitive disabilities) requires that supervisors have more information about and experience 

with these kinds of accommodations. In addition, 

effective use of the possible accommodation of reassignment to a vacant position should be promoted, 

where feasible.

Also of interest is the supervisors’ report of where 

they seek accommodation information assistance. The 

resources used by the largest number of supervisors 

were human resource personnel at the central and 

serving/sub agency levels. Much less often used were 

specialty disability information persons or services like 

the state vocational rehabilitation agency, Disabilities 

Services Office, Disabled Employee Advisory Group, 

local independent living center or other disability 

organization, or the Job Accommodation Network 

(JAN). Yet, when these services were used, they were 

seen as helpful by approximately three-quarters or 

more of the respondents. These results suggest that it 

is imperative to keep central and sub-agency human 

resource personnel informed about disability issues, as 

they are the first line of resources used by supervisors 

2

Further information about these U.S. Federal hiring authorities 

for people with disabilities can be found at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management web site at http://www.opm.gov/disability/

employment.htm.

3 Targeted disabilities, as defined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), are disabilities “targeted” for emphasis 

in affirmative action planning. These are: deafness, blindness, 

missing extremities, mental retardation, mental illness, and 

genetic or physical conditions affecting limbs and/or spine. For 

further information, see the U.S. Office of Personnel Management 

web site at http://www.opm.gov/disability/employment.htm.
32 

to address their accommodation questions. They could 

also serve as an effective conduit to refer supervisors 

towards less frequently used resources. In addition, 

it appears that the services of disability specialty 

organizations needs to be given a much higher profile, 

to increase awareness of their existence as possible 

resources among Federal supervisors. 

Supervisor Role in Recruitment

Eighty percent of the respondents reported hiring new 

employees in the past five years (or since they became 

a Federal supervisor, if less than five years), with onethird of these reporting that they had hired at least 

one person with a disability in this period. Approximately one-third of the respondents reported being 

very involved in recruitment within their agency, with 

white-collar supervisors more likely to be involved 

than blue-collar. Obviously, having supervisors well informed about the Federal initiatives to recruit people 

with disabilities and the accommodation process is 

vital, given their significant role in the hiring process.

However, only slightly more than half of the supervisors involved in recruitment reported being very 

familiar or somewhat familiar with the special hiring 

authorities for the Federal government that promote 

hiring disabled veterans, while approximately onethird were familiar with hiring readers/interpreters 

and other personal assistants for employees with 

disabilities, and the special hiring authorities for hiring people with cognitive disabilities (mental retardation), significant physical disabilities, or people 

who have recovered from mental illness. This lack of 

awareness of these provisions suggest that much more 

promotion among supervisors of these Federal hiring authorities and supporting initiatives needs to be 

done.

Exceedingly encouraging is the fact that over half of 

the respondents reported that when changes were 

made to accommodate individuals with disabilities in 

the recruitment and pre-employment screening processes, these changes were easy or very easy to make. 

Also good news is that over half of the respondents 

indicated that in their opinion, their agency sets reasonable affirmative employment goals and makes an 

effort to achieve these goals.

However, confirming the earlier comments about 

supervisors’ lack of experience with accommodations 

specifically relating to persons with vision and hearing 

impairments, more than a third reported being unfamiliar or very unfamiliar with accommodations for persons with communication disabilities, such as adapting print materials used in the interview (to large 

print, diskette, or Braille), using a reader to assist a 

person with a learning disability or visual impairment, 

using a teletypewriter (TTY) or relay service to set up 

interviews, and accessing sign language interpreters. 

This suggests that more information about how to 

address these accommodations and resources available 

to assist supervisors needs to be disseminated.

Opportunities for Promotion and Advancement

When asked about continuing barriers to employment or advancement of people with disabilities, 

supervisors most often identified the lack of related 

experience or requisite skills and training on behalf 

of the individuals with disabilities, as well as supervisor knowledge of which accommodation to make, the 

workplace failing to provide an accommodation when 

needed, and atti-tudes and stereotypes towards people 

with disabilities. Supervisors responding to this survey 

identified visible top management commitment and 

skills/training for employees with disabilities as the 

most effective means of reducing these remaining 

barriers to employment or advancement of people with 

disabilities. 

The response of supervisors to the identification of 

remaining barriers to people with disabilities confirms 

the importance of special initiatives like those provided 

in the Presidential Orders to promote written accommodation polices in each Federal agency. A clear message 

from Federal leadership about the importance of 

recruitment and retention of employees with disabilities is imperative, as confirmed by the perceptions of 

Federal supervisors. In addition, expanded opportunities for targeted training and work experience for 

individuals with disabilities is confirmed here. At the 
33

Federal level, National Disability Mentoring Day,

conducted successfully over the past two years, as well 

as the Workforce Recruitment Program, are examples 

of such needed programs. In addition, the technology 

training programs for people with disabilities recently 

conducted under the leadership of the U.S. Department 

of Labor provide an example of a significant Federal 

government response to the recognition that creation 

and promotion of training opportunities is needed for 

people with disabilities to be competitive in the current 

job market. Finally, the Office of Personnel Management 

has reinforced its commitment to promote employment opportunities for people with disabilities through 

the President’s New Freedom Initiative and Executive 

Order 13217, by identifying multiple interagency 

initiatives it will implement in FY 2002.4 

Another question for further investigation here is 

whether supervisor perceptions of skill and experience 

deficits in people with disabilities compared to their 

nondisabled peers are due to an actual disparity in 

these job requisites, or are a function of continuing 

attitudinal stereotypes and biases about people with 

disabilities.

Resources Most Used to Resolve ADA Issues

Another area of interest is the choice of resources 

used to resolve accommodation and disability-related 

issues. Again, human resource staff and the Equal 

Employment Opportunity (EEO) staff were most often 

used, and seen as very helpful when used. Far less often used were the Disabilities Services Office, selective 

placement coordinator, and the Job Accommodation 

Network (JAN), despite the fact that these resources 

were seen as helpful or very helpful in resolving ADA 

disputes by three-quarters or more of those who used 

them. 

Again, this is an area where it is important that the 

Federal government ensures that human resource 

personnel and EEO personnel are well informed about 

disability-related issues and resources, as they are the 

first line of resources used by supervisors to resolve 

ADA issues. In addition, it appears that the services 

of disability specialty organizations within Federal 

agencies need to be better promoted among Federal 

supervisors.

Continuing Need for Supervisor Training

Nine out of ten respondents reported having had 

some formal civil rights training as a Federal supervisor, with approximately half of those trained receiving between one and fifteen hours of training. This 

training was most often provided as a part of general 

employment discrimination or diversity training, or of 

general supervisory/management training. In terms 

of promoting further information among supervisors 

on disability-related topics, respondents saw making 

ADA/disability employment a mandatory element of 

management training as the most effective incentive 

to encourage attendance at disability nondiscrimination related training.

Consistent with their responses about experience with 

the special hiring authorities, and accommodations for 

persons with psychiatric disabilities, supervisors’ top 

choices for more information were accommodations 

for persons with psychiatric/mental illness disabilities 

and the special Federal hiring authorities for persons 

with disabilities. Supervisors also noted that they 

would like more information about the accommodation 

process generally. This indicates that supervisors are 

indeed interested in these topic areas and willing to 

put in some effort to learn more about them.

Also important to note is that the supervisors most 

often used video materials and on-site consultation/

training to get disability-related information. Reported as least-often used were government-sponsored 

programs and employee-sponsored disability organizations. The lack of use of these particular resources 

may have been a function of lack of awareness of 

them, as one in three respondents or more indicated 

that they were not aware of either of these resources. 

4Delivering on the Promise: Compilation of Individual Federal 

Agency Reports to Eliminate Barriers and Promote Community Integration. (2002). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services.
34 

Here again, better internal promotion among Federal 

supervisors of these specialty disability resources is 

indicated.

Supervisor Awareness of and 

Impact to Date of Presidential Orders

A significant part of the effort of this study was aimed 

at informing Federal leadership about the impact to 

date of Presidential Orders to promote the hiring and 

retention of applicants and employees with disabilities. 

Survey respondents were asked about their awareness 

of the Federal initiative regarding telecommuting/

telework for individuals with significant disabilities. 

Approximately one in three were aware of this provision, with white-collar supervisors significantly 

more likely to be aware of this initiative compared to 

blue-collar supervisors. Overall, 13 percent of the respondents indicated they currently supervise full-time 

employees who work primarily from home or another 

off-site location. White-collar supervisors, however, 

were far more likely to have this situation than their 

blue-collar supervisors. 

When asked whether, in their opinion, office-based full 

time positions that they currently supervised could 

be relocated to home-based or other site facilities, approximately one-third of the white-collar supervisors 

reported that this was possible (compared to six 

percent of blue-collar supervisors). When asked about 

the ability to develop full-time positions that could 

be performed from home or another off-site location, 

respondents indicated it would be easier to split such 

positions between home and off-site, rather than to 

develop positions that would be dedicated to full-time 

off-site employment. Nearly half of the white-collar 

supervisors responded that it would be very easy/easy 

to accommodate an individual with a chronic illness 

or disability with a similar home/office split. However, over three quarters of the blue-collar supervisors 

reported it would be either difficult or impossible. 

Given the types of positions the blue-collar supervisors oversee, this result is not too surprising, as 

they would be far less likely to have work that could 

be accomplished remotely.

Supervisor responses to these questions provide 

encouraging feedback about the possible use of flex 

place positions, at least on a part-time basis, to accommodate the need for at-home work for employees 

with disabilities. Also very helpful were the supervisor 

respondents’ ratings of approaches that would assist 

in this initiative. Respondents indicated that off-site 

technology support, guidance for performance assessment of off-site workers, and formal flexplace agreements between off-site employees and supervisors 

would all be helpful to them as a supervisor in creating or supporting home-based or off-site/flexplace/

telecommuting employee positions.

Approximately three of four supervisors reported that 

the following would be helpful in implementing the 

Technology Nondiscrimination requirements of Section 

508: The technical staff within their agency (i.e. chief 

information officer/helpdesk), centralized technical assistance on technology accessibility issues, 

and training procurement specialists in Section 508 

requirements. 

Only two in five supervisors surveyed were aware of 

any one of the following executive orders regarding: the hiring of 100,000 qualified individuals with 

disabilities over the next five years (Executive Order 

13163), the EEOC guidelines for Federal agencies to 

establish written procedures to facilitate the provision of reasonable accommodation (Executive Order 

13164), and the July, 2000 Federal Initiative (Presidential Memorandum) regarding telecommuting/

telework for individuals with significant disabilities. 

Over a third were not aware of any of the three and 

less than one in five (16 percent) reported awareness of all of them. This low level of awareness is 

especially disturbing in light of the fact that a third 

of the supervisors had reported being very involved 

in the recruitment process. Even when this “very 

involved” group is examined separately, only one in 

five are aware of all three orders/initiatives, with 

nearly a third reporting not being aware of any of 

them. Although supervisors who have experience with 

employees with disabilities were found to be more 

likely to be aware of these orders and initiatives than 
35

supervisors without this experience, still only one in 

five are aware of all three orders/initiatives and three 

in ten are not aware of any of them. This points to a 

troubling disconnect regarding these important initiatives—how can they be effective when so many of the 

supervisors on the “front line” are unaware of them?

On the positive side, approximately two of five of 

those who were aware of the orders for the hiring of 

100,000 individuals with disabilities and the written 

procedures for the provision of reasonable accommodations, reported them to have had influenced their 

practices either somewhat or a great deal. As would be 

expected, those who had supervised employees with 

disabilities reported a greater impact on their practice 

than supervisors without experience with employees 

with disabilities.

Further Research and Next Steps

The results discussed in this report indicate a need 

for further research. One direction for this research is 

to seek perspectives on nondiscriminatory practices 

from Federal employees with disabilities and their 

co-workers. Additional areas for research include Federal training programs, technology applications, and 

issues around attitudinal barriers versus the perceived 

knowledge and skills of people with disabilities as 

employment barriers. 

This report indicates many areas where the Federal 

government can and should provide additional promotion, outreach, and technical assistance to its agencies. This includes the education on the use of special 

hiring authorities; accommodations for people with 

visual, learning, and hearing disabilities, and people 

with psychiatric disabilities; disability resources that 

facilitate the accommodations process; governmentwide initiatives to promote the recruitment, hiring, 

retention, and career advancement of people with 

disabilities; and improving technology, telecommuting 

and telework. 

Finally, this report highlights policy areas that warrant consideration by the Federal government. These 

areas include the possibility of mandatory training 

in nondiscriminatory practices for supervisors; government-wide consistency in policies and procedures 

for expanding telecommuting and telework for people 

with disabilities; more firmly establishing agencywide goals in the area of employment of people with 

disabilities through the Government Performance and 

Results Act; and re-visiting the Federal government’s 

commitment to hiring and reasonable accommodation 

initiatives begun in 2000.

The information contained in this report will be broadly disseminated to Task Force member agencies as well 

as Federal departments and agencies for consideration 

in their efforts to increase opportunities and remove 

barriers to the employment of people with disabilities 

in the Federal government.
36 
37

Appendices

©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère
38 
©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère 39

Appendix A: Survey

Survey of the Federal Government 

on Supervisor Practices in 

Employment of People with Disabilities

Sponsored by:

The Presidential Task Force

on Employment of Adults 

with Disabilities

Conducted by:

Cornell University

School of Industrial & 

Labor Relations

The research which sponsored the original survey design was funded by the U.S. Department of Education

National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research for a Research and Demonstration Project to the

Program on Employment and Disability in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations Extension Division at

Cornell University (grant #H133A70005), Susanne M. Bruyère, Principal Investigator

©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère 3
40 ©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère 

Instructions

Please answer each question as it pertains to your

agencypersonal experience as a supervisor in the federal government. When questions refer to your agency,

please answer for the unit of your agency for which

you are responsible 

All responses to this survey are completely anonymous and confidential. Participation in this research

is entirely voluntary, you may decline to answer or

refuse to participate and may withdraw at any time

without penalty.

4 ©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère

Definitions

The employment provisions of the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act

require reasonable accommodation. A reasonable

accommodation is a modification or adjustment to 

a job, the work environment, or the way things are

usually done that enables a qualified individual with

a disability to enjoy an equal opportunity. Reasonable

accommodations must be provided unless the employer

can show that the accommodation would impose an

undue hardship on the business. (The law requires

that only qualified people with disabilities are eligible for reasonable accommodation.)

A “person with a disability” is someone who: a) has

a physical or mental impairment that substantially

limits a major life activity, b) has a record of such

an impairment or, c) is regarded as having such an

impairment. 

A qualified individual with a disability is a person

with a disability who:

n Satisfies the requisite skill, education and other 

job–related requirements of the position.

n Can perform the essential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation. 
©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère 41

I. Demographic Information

S1. Number of Federal employees for whom you are the

immediate supervisor: (Please note number) Federal employees

S2. Total number of employees you supervise: total emplyees supervised

(Please note number) (If = 0 then ineligible)

S3. Number of years as a supervisor in the Federal government: years (If <1 year then ineligible)

5. Number of years with your department or Agency: years

II. Issue Areas

A. The Reasonable Accommodation Process

PTF2. Does your agency have a formal process for handling accommodation requests?

1 Yes 2 No 8 Don’t know

No, never

No, not needed to make Don’t

Yes able to accommodations know

a. advocated to make existing facilities 1 2 3 8

accessible to employees with disabilities 

(restrooms, door entrances, hallways, etc.)

b. restructured jobs or modified work hours 1 2 3 8

c. made reassignment to vacant positions 1 2 3 8

d. acquired or modified equipment or devices 1 2 3 8

e. acquired or modified examination or training materials 1 2 3 8

f. provided qualified readers or interpreters 1 2 3 8

(includes personal assistants)

h. changed supervisory methods 1 2 3 8

i. made parking or transportation accommodations 1 2 3 8

j. provided written job instructions 1 2 3 8

l. provided a job coach 1 2 3 8

m. Other (Please specify ) 1 2 3 8

©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère 5

1. To meet the needs of your employees with

disabilities, have you or your agency on 

the behalf of an employee you supervise: 

(Please circle one response for each item)
42 

6 ©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère

S1. Over the past five fiscal years, or since you have been a Federal supervisor (whichever is less), how many

accommodation requests have you received as a supervisor?

Number of Requests 

S2. How many employees with disabilities have you had supervisory responsibilities for in the past five years?

(if none skip to 2)

S3. What types of disabilities have your employees had? (please check all that apply) 

a. Visual impairment

b. Hearing impairment

c. Missing extremities

d. Partial paralysis

e. Total paralysis

f. Convulsive disorders

g. Mental retardation

2. If an accommodation request is made, who would make the final decision regarding the provision of a

accommodation? (Please circle one response)

1. You as the immediate supervisor of the 

employee requesting

12. You in consultation with your immediate 

supervisor

2. Occupational health/medical clinic staff

3. Safety/ergonomic staff

4. HR staff

5. Legal counsel (internal or external)

6. Your agency’s EEO office

7. Other manager/director

8. Disability management/benefits staff

13. Disabilities services office

9. Other (please specify)

10. No single final responsible party)

11. Don’t know

h. Mental illness

i. Genetic/physical/neurological con

dition affecting limbs and/or spine

j. Musculo-skeletal disorders (i.e. 

back, repetitive motion injury, etc.)

k. Other (please specify)

©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère
©1999 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère 43

Not

aware Aware, Aware, Not

of this but not but not Very Moderately Somewhat Slightly helpful

resource needed helpful helpful helpful helpful helpful at all

a. Central human resource personnel 

(Department wide) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5

b. Servicing human resource personnel 

(sub-agency or unit level) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5

c. Disabilities Services Office 

(i.e. CAP, COAST, TARGET Center) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5

d. EEO office 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5

e. Disability management/benefits 

staff 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5

f. Occupational health/medical 

clinic staff 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5

g. Safety/ergonomic staff 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5

h. Employee Assistance Program 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5

i. External health care provider 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5

j. State vocational rehabilitation

agencies 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5

k. Local independent living centers 

or other disability organizations 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5

l. Job Accommodation Network 

(toll-free number) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5

n. Disabled Employee Advisory Group 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5

o. Selective Placement Coordinator 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5

m. Other 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5

S4. Have you used the following 

resources for accommodation

assistance?

n If YES: how helpful was it?

n If NO: why not?

©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère 7

Yes If No: Why Not? How helpful was it?

Used it?
44 ©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère 

S4. How familiar are you with the special appointing authorities, to bring people with disabilities into the 

Federal workplace and how frequently have you used them? (Please circle one response per item)

Very Somewhat Slightly Not aware

familiar familiar familiar of provisions Frequently Occasionally Never

a. For hiring people with cognitive 1 2 3 8 1 2 3 

disabilities (mental retardation), 

significant physical disabilities,

or people who have recovered 

from mental illness

b. For hiring readers/interpreters 1 2 3 8 1 2 3

and other personal assistants 

for employees with disabilities

c. For hiring disabled veterans 1 2 3 8 1 2 3

(30 percent disabled or more)

1. In order to comply with the ADA and/or the Rehabilitation Act, how easy or difficult was it for you to make

the following changes or adaptations?

Neither Not able Change

Very easy nor Very to make not Don’t

easy Easy difficult Difficult difficult this change requested know

c. Changing questions asked in interviews 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

d. Making interview locations accessible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

to people with disabilities 

h. Making information accessible for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

a deaf or hard of hearing person 

(e.g. sign language interpreter; 

text telephone; captioning on video)

i. Making information accessible for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

persons with visual or learning 

disabilities (e.g. a reader, Braille, 

large print, diskette, or audio-cassette

or telephone version of application)

l. Other (Please specify) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

B. Recruitment, Pre-Employment Screening, Testing, and Orientation

8 ©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère

S1. How many employees have you hired in the past five years or since you were a Federal supervisor 

(whichever is less)? 

S2. How many of these new hires have had a disability? 

S3. How involved are you in recruitment? 

1 Very involved 2 Fairly involved 3 Slightly involved 4 Not at all involved 8 Don’t know

F a m i l i a r i t y F r e q u e n c y
©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère 45

PTF4. To what extent does your agency set reasonable affirmative employment goals and make an effort to 

achieve them?

1 A great deal 2 Somewhat 3 Minimally 4 Not at all 8 Don’t know

3. Generally, how familiar are you with the following for applicant interviewing? 

(Please circle one response per item)

Neither

Very familiar nor Very Don’t

familiar Familiar unfamiliar Unfamiliar unfamiliar know

a. Framing questions to applicants 1 2 3 4 5 8

about the ability to perform specific 

job tasks rather than about disability

b. Restrictions on obtaining medical 1 2 3 4 5 8

examinations and medical history information

c. Restrictions on eliciting information 1 2 3 4 5 8

about medical issues affecting applicants’ 

health and safety on the job

d. Knowing when to ask an applicant about 1 2 3 4 5 8

how s/he would perform specific job tasks

e. Accessing sign language interpreters 1 2 3 4 5 8

f. Using a teletypewriter (TTY) or relay service 1 2 3 4 5 8

to set up interviews

g. Using a reader to assist a person with 1 2 3 4 5 8

a learning disability or vision impairment

h. Adapting print materials used in the 1 2 3 4 5 8

interview to large print, diskette, or Braille

i. Knowing when to test for illegal drugs 1 2 3 4 5 8

©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère 9
46 ©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère 

D. Opportunities for Promotion/Training

1. In your opinion, do any of the following pose a barrier to employment or advancement for persons with 

disabilities in your agency? (Please circle all that apply)

a Cost of accommodations 

b Cost of training

c Additional cost of supervision

i Additional cost of travel and transportation(such as a blind person having 

to have a driver to get to a worksite (if they can’t drive themselves)

d Attitudes/stereotypes

e A supervisor’s knowledge of which accommodation to make

f Lack of requisite skills and training on behalf of the person with a disability

g Lack of related experience on behalf of the person with a disability

j Lack of established policy/procedures 

k Accommodation not provided when needed 

h Other (Please specify )

2. How effective or ineffective would each of the following be in reducing barriers to employment or 

advancement for persons with disabilities within your agency? (Please circle one response for each item)

Very Very Don’t

effective ineffective know

a. Special budget allocation/centralized accommodation fund 1 2 3 4 5 8

b. Short-term outside assistance with job supervision 1 2 3 4 5 8

(e.g. outside job coach)

c. Staff training 1 2 3 4 5 8

d. On-site consultation or technical assistance 1 2 3 4 5 8

e. Mentoring 1 2 3 4 5 8

f. Visible top management commitment 1 2 3 4 5 8

Sg. Include affirmative action and accommodation items for 1 2 3 4 5 8

persons with disabilities in supervisor performance appraisals

Sh. Changing co-worker/supervisor attitudes towards persons 1 2 3 4 5 8

with disabilities

Si. Departmental reward/recognition ex. A certificate

acknowledging outstanding performance 1 2 3 4 5 8

Sj. Development and input from a disability advisory group 1 2 3 4 5 8

Sk. Skills training for employees with disabilities 1 2 3 4 5 8

g. Other (Please specify ) 1 2 3 4 5 8

10 ©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère
©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère 47

4. Have you used the following to ensure that people with disabilities you supervise have access to meetings, 

promotional, social opportunities and/or training? (Please circle one response for each item)

No, never

No, not able needed to Don’t

Yes to provide provide know

a. Wheelchair access 1 2 3 8

b. Communication access for deaf or hard of hearing person 1 2 3 8

(e.g. sign language interpreter; text telephone; captioning 

on video; etc.)

c. Communication access for persons with visual or learning 1 2 3 8

disabilities (e.g., Braille, large print, diskette or audiocassette 

version of application; reader)

f. Other (Please specify ) 1 2 3 8

©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère 11
48 

E. Disciplinary Process, Grievance, Discharge, or Termination

1. Does your agency have a grievance or dispute resolution process to deal with disability and accommodation

issues? (Please circle one response)

1 Yes 2 No 8 Don’t know

2. Have you as a Federal supervisor ever experienced any of the following as a formal disability complaint?

(Please circle one response for each item)

Yes No Don’t know

a. Wrongful discharge 1 2 8

b. Failure to provide reasonable accommodation 1 2 8

c. Failure to hire 1 2 8

d. Harassment 1 2 8

e. Unfair discipline 1 2 8

f. Failure to promote 1 2 8

g. Suspension 1 2 8

l. Other (specify) 1 2 8

S3. If an accommodation dispute arises, how easy or difficult would the following be for you?

Very Very Don’t

easy difficult know

a. Discussing accommodation needs with the individual 1 2 3 4 5 8

b. Getting sufficient training on dispute resolution approaches 1 2 3 4 5 8

c. Accessing a resource person to help with accommodation issues 1 2 3 4 5 8

(HR, EEO, health & safety, ergonomics, Employee Relations, etc.) 

d. Having access to a person trained in alternative dispute 1 2 3 4 5 8 

resolution (ADR)

e. Determining the most appropriate dispute resolution process 1 2 3 4 5 8

(Dispute resolution is conflict resolution, or for example using 

a mediator to solve a disagreement

f. Effectively using the existing dispute/complaint resolution 1 2 3 4 5 8 

process Dispute resolution is conflict resolution or for example 

using a mediator to solve a disagreement

12 ©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère

©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère
49

H. General

S1. Have you been trained in the following 

ADA/Rehabilitation Act topics?

Don’t

Yes No know Yes No

PTF2. The special appointing/hiring authorities 1 2 8 1 2

a. Non-discriminatory recruitment and hiring practices 1 2 8 1 2

b. The accommodation process 1 2 8 1 2

c. Equal access in promotional opportunities and training 1 2 8 1 2

d. Accommodation for mental disabilities 1 2 8 1 2

e. Defining essential job functions 1 2 8 1 2

f. Confidentiality requirements of medical information 1 2 8 1 2

h. Non-discrimination in the disciplinary process or termination 1 2 8 1 2

i. Conflict resolution in the accommodation process 1 2 8 1 2

j. Disability awareness and/or sensitivity training 1 2 8 1 2

Sk. Section 508 training (Section 508 requires that electronic 1 2 8 1 2

and information technology developed, procured, maintained, 

or used by the Federal government be accessible to people 

with disabilities)

m. Other (Please specify) 1 2 8 1 2

IF all of the above questions are “no” or “don’t know” SKIP TO S4

S2. Approximately how many hours of formal ADA/Rehabilitation Act training (class, seminar, conference) 

have you received as a Federal supervisor?

None 1-5hrs 6-10hrs 11-15hrs 16-20hrs 21-25hrs More than 25hrs

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

S3. How was the ADA/Rehabilitation Act training provided to you as a Federal supervisor? 

(circle all that apply)

a. Specialized focus on disability by Federal Government staff expert

b. Specialized focus on disability by external consultant

c. As a part of general employment discrimination or diversity training

d. As a part of general supervisory/management training

e. Other 

©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère 13

Please circle Would you like

one response more information

for each item in this area?

©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère
50 ©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère 

S4. How effective or ineffective would each of the following incentives be in encouraging disability non-discriminatory related training? (including ADA, disability employment, Rehab Act, EEOC guidance, 508

Compliance) (Please circle one response for each item)

Very Very Don’t

effective Inefective know

a. Department reward/recognition for receiving ADA training 1 2 3 4 5 8

b. ADA training available on the internet 1 2 3 4 5 8

c. Pay ADA training costs 1 2 3 4 5 8

d. Make ADA/Disability employment a mandatory element 

of management training 1 2 3 4 5 8

e. Other (Please specify ) 1 2 3 4 5 8

Not Aware Aware, Aware, Not

of this but not but not Very helpful

resource needed helpful helpful at all

Sa. State vocational rehabilitation agencies, Disability 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5

& Business Technical Assistance Centers,Local

independent living centers or other disability 

organizations, or (toll-free number)

c. Job Accommodation Network (toll-free number) 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5

e. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5

(EEOC)

f. Your agency’s EEO office 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5

g. Agency legal counsel 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5

h. Your safety/ergonomics staff 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5

i. Disability management/benefits staff 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5

j. Union representative 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5

k. Other Federal agencies or professional society or 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5

business agency (e.g., OPM, MSPB, SHRM, IPMA)

l. Dispute resolution center/mediator 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5

Sm. Disabilities Services Office 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5

Sn. Selective Placement Coordinator 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5

So. HR Staff/Employee Relations 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5

14 ©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère

2. Please indicate which of the following 

resources you have utilized to help resolve 

ADA issues and rate their degree of helpfulness.

n If YES: how helpful was it?

n If NO: why not?

UTILIZED HELPFULNESS

Yes No If no: Why not?
©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère 51

Not Aware Aware, Aware, Not

of this but not but not Very helpful

resource needed helpful helpful at all

a. Print or video materials 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5

b. Telephone consultation/information hotline 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5

c. On-site consultation/training 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5

d. Web sites/list serve/U.S. EEOC homepage 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5

e. Organizational newsletter 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5

Sf. Government sponsored conferences such as 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5

IDEAS (Interagency Disability Educational 

Awareness Showcase), Perspectives on 

Employment of Persons with Disabilities, FOSE 

(Federal Sectors Information Technology Fair)

Sg.Employee sponsored disability organization in 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5

your department/agency

f. Other (Please specify ) 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5

4. Does your agency have a return to work or disability management program for employees who are injured 

or become disabled? (Please circle one response)

1 Yes, formal program with written policies/procedures

2 Yes, informal program with no formal written procedures

3 No return to work/disability management program

Skip to S6

4 Not familiar/don’t know if such a program exists

A great Not Don’t

deal Somewhat Minimally at all know

a. Your awareness of the accommodation process 1 2 3 4 8

b. An organizational structure for providing accommodations 1 2 3 4 8

(i.e. centralized agency resource)

c. Recognition of the importance of confidentiality of medical information 1 2 3 4 8

d. Raising the acceptance of employees with disabilities by other employees 1 2 3 4 8

S6. To what extent does your agency implement affirmative action and 1 2 3 4 8

accommodation items for persons with disabilities as a measure of agency 

effectiveness?

©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère 15

3. Please indicate which of the following 

informational mediums you use to

address your ADA/disability employment 

issues and rate their degree of

helpfulness. 

n If YES: how helpful was it?

n If NO: why not? 

UTILIZED HELPFULNESS

Yes No If no: Why not?

5. To what extent has your agency’s disability 

management program contributed to the following? 

(Please circle one response for each item)
52 

Section I: Presidential Orders

S1.How helpful will each of the following be in implementing the technology nondiscrimination requirements

of Section 508? (508 requires that electronic and information technology developed, procured, maintained, or used by

the Federal government be accessible to people with disabilities.)

Very Not helpful Don’t

helpful at all know

a. Centralized technology procurement which screens for these 1 2 3 4 5 8

criteria

b. Training procurement specialists in section 508 requirements 1 2 3 4 5 8

c. Centralized technical assistance on technology accessibility 1 2 3 4 5 8

issues

d. Unit specific expertise/ technical assistance on technology 1 2 3 4 5 8

accessibility issues

e. The technical staff within your agency 1 2 3 4 5 8

(i.e. Chief Information Officer (CIO)/Help Desk)

f. Other (specify ) 1 2 3 4 5 8

S2. Do you currently supervise any full-time employees who work primarily from home or 

another off-site location?

1 Yes 2 No

S3. In your opinion, could any of the office based full time positions you currently supervise be:

a. Relocated to home-based or other off-site facilities:

1 Yes 2 No 6 No relevant positions 

b. Split between home/off-site location and office in a given week 

(i.e. 3 days/week at home/off-site, 2 days/week in office):

1 Yes 2 No 6 No relevant positions 

S4. How easy or difficult would it be for you to develop full time positions that could be:

a. Performed from home or another off-site location 5 days/week:

1 Very Easy 2 Easy 3 Neither easy nor difficult 4 Difficult 5 Very difficult

6 No relevant positions 8 Don’t know

b. Split between home/off-site location and office in a given week 

(i.e. 3 days/week at home/off-site, 2 days/week in office):

1 Very Easy 2 Easy 3 Neither easy nor difficult 4 Difficult 5 Very difficult

6 No relevant positions 8 Don’t know

If answer is "No relevant positions" for all questions S3a&b and S4a&b above, skip to S6.

16 ©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère

©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère
53

S5. How helpful would each of the following be to you as a supervisor in creating and supporting home-based 

or off-site/flexiplace/ telecommuting? 

Very Not helpful Don’t

helpful at all know

a. Guidelines for supervision of off-site workers 1 2 3 4 5 8

b. Training for supervisors of off-site workers 1 2 3 4 5 8

c. Training for coworkers of off-site workers 1 2 3 4 5 8

d. Initial and ongoing training for off-site workers 1 2 3 4 5 8

e. Off-site technology support 1 2 3 4 5 8

f. Guidelines for performance assessment of off-site workers 1 2 3 4 5 8

g. Guidelines for the design of off-site work 1 2 3 4 5 8

h. Formal flexiplace agreement between off-site 1 2 3 4 5 8

employee and supervisor

S6. How easy or difficult would it be for you to accommodate an individual with a chronic illness or disability (for example: someone who has cancer treatment, physical therapy, dialysis, or mobility impaired 

employees) with the ability to work at home for 1-2 days a week or intermittently? 

1 Very Easy 2 Easy 3 Neither easy nor difficult 4 Difficult 5 Very difficult

6 No relevant positions 8 Don’t know

S7. Are you aware of the July, 2000 Federal initiative (Executive Order 13163) that requires the Federal 

Government hiring of 100,000 qualified individuals with disabilities over the next 5 years?

1 Yes 2 No (skip to S9)

S8. To what extent has your agency’s plan to implement this Executive Order influenced your recruitment and

hiring practices?

1 A great deal 2 Somewhat 3 Minimally 4 Not at all 8 Don’t know

S9. Are you aware of the EEOC Guidelines (2/13/01) for Federal agencies to implement Executive Order 

13164, establishing written procedures to facilitate the provision of reasonable accommodation? 

1 Yes 2 No (skip to S11)

©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère 17

©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère
54 

S10. To what extent do these new accommodation procedures influence your supervisory practice? 

1 A great deal 2 Somewhat 3 Minimally 4 Not at all 8 Don’t know

S11. Are you aware of the July, 2000 Federal initiative (presidential memorandum) regarding 

telecommuting/telework for individuals with significant disabilities?

1 Yes 2 No 

6. Would you like a copy of the executive summary of the results of this study?

1 Yes 2 No

Please provide your information

Name: 

Agency: 

Street address: 

City: 

State: Zip:

Telephone: 

E-mail address 

Thank you for your assistance!

If you have any questions, please contact

Lisa Horn 

Telephone (toll-free): (888) 367-8404

TDD: 607-255-2891

Email: LLH5@cornell.edu

18 ©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère

©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère
55

Appendix B: 

List of Agencies Participating in Supervisor Survey

©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère

Agency Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Department of Agriculture 80 8% 52 6% 28 15%

Department of Commerce 58 6% 38 5% 20 10%

Department of Education 53 55 53 7%

Department of Interior 65 6% 46 6% 19 10%

Department of Justice 85 8% 73 9% 12 6%

Department of Labor 51 5% 51 6%

Department of Transportation 28 3% 22 3% 6 3%

Department of Treasury 108 11% 71 9% 37 19%

Department of Veteran’s Affairs 101 10% 70 9% 31 16%

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 51 5% 51 6%

Federal Communications Commission 50 5 50 6%

Health and Human Services 60 6% 41 5% 19 10%

Housing and Urban Development 53 5% 53 7%

National Council on Disability 1 0% 1 0%

Office of Personnel Management 50 5% 50 6%

Small Business Administration 52 5% 52 6%

Social Security Administration 55 5% 36 4% 19 10%

Totals 1001 100% 810 100% 191 100%

 

TOTAL WHITE COLLAR BLUE COLLAR

N=1001 SUPERVISORS N=810 SUPERVISORS N=810 
56 

Appendix C: Supervisor Respondent Demographics

©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère

Years with Agency

 1-5 6% 

 6-10 11 

 11-15 19 

 16-20+ 14

 21+ 51 

Note: percent of all respondents, n=1001.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Years as Federal Supervisor

 1-5 27%

 6-10 22 

 11-15 21 

 16-20+ 15

 21+ 14 

Note: percent of all respondents, n=1001.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Federal General Schedule Grade (or equivalent)

 4 or below 12%

 5-8 10

 9-12 21

 13-15 56 

Note: percent of all respondents, n=1001.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Number of Total Supervisees

 1-10 43%

 11-20 25 

 21-90 25

 90+ 7 

Note: percent of all respondents, n=1001.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Number of Immediate Supervisees

 1-6 36%

 7-12 33 

 12+ 31 

Note: percent of all respondents, n=1001.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Number of Supervisees with Disabilities

in the Past Five Years

 None 40%

 1-2 40

 3-4 11

 5-10 6

 11+ 3 

Note: percent of all respondents, n=1001.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Number of Accommodation Requests 

Received in the Past Five years 

as a Federal Supervisor

 None 50%

 1-2 29

 3-4 10

 5-10 8

 11+ 3 

Note: percent of all respondents, n=1001.

Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
57

Appendix D: Additional Resources 

1) Department of Labor: Office of Disability 

 Employment Policy (ODEP)

 1331 F Street, N.W. Suite 300

 Washington, DC 20004

 Phone: (V) 202-376-6200

 (TTY) 202-376-6205

 (FAX) 202-376-6219

 Website: www.dol.gov/odep/

 ODEP sponsors: 

 The New Freedom Initiative: Disability Direct

 Website: www.disabilitydirect.gov/

2) President’s Committee Job Accommodation 

 Network (JAN)

 918 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 1

 West Virginia University–PO Box 6080

 Morgantown, WV 26506-6080

 Phone: (V) 800-526-7234

 (TTY) 800-232-9675

 Website: www.pcepd.gov and click on 

 JAN or go directly to JAN at 

 janweb.icdi.wvu.edu/english/homeus.htm

3) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

 1801 L Street NW (Federal Sector Programs) 

 Washington, DC 20507

 Phone: (V) 800-669-3362

 (TTY) 800-800-3302

 Website: www.eeoc.gov

 For specific Federal employment questions, 

 call the “ATTORNEY OF THE DAY” at 202-663-4599.

4) Department of Labor: Office of Federal 

 Contractor Compliance Programs (OFCCP) 

 Department of Labor

 Frances Perkins Building

 200 Constitution Avenue NW

 Washington, DC 20210 

 Phone: (V) 888-376-3227

 (V) 202-219-9475

 (TTY) 202-208-0452

 Website: www.dol.gov/esa/

5) U.S. Office of Personnel Management

 (for Federal employment information)

 1900 E Street, NW

 Washington, DC 20415

 Phone: (V) 202-606-2700 

 (TTY) 912-744-2299

 Website: www.opm.gov

©2002 Cornell University Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations—Extension Division, S. Bruyère
58

For additional information, contact:

Richard L. Horne

Senior Policy Advisor

Presidential Task Force on

Employment of Adults with Disabilities

200 Constitution Avenue NW

Room S2220D

Washington, DC 20210

202-693-4939 (Voice)

202-693-4920 (TTY)

202-693-4929 (Fax)

e-mail: horne-richard@dol.gov

web: http://www.dol.gov

Susanne M. Bruyère

Director

Program on Employment and Disability

School of Industrial and Labor Relations

106 ILR Extension

Cornell University

Ithaca, NY 14853-3901

607-255-7727 (Voice)

607-255-2891 (TTY)

607-255-2763 (Fax)

e-mail: ilr_ped@cornell.edu

web: http:///www.ilr.cornell.edu/ped