Employer Engagement Strategy:

Workforce Inclusion

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2

I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3

Background on the Employment Rates of People with Disabilities ...................................................... 4

II. Past Efforts to Use a Business Case Approach .............................................................................. 6

III. Wharton’s Proposed Shift to a Marketing Approach.................................................................... 7

Underlying Philosophy .......................................................................................................................... 7

Focus Group Findings ............................................................................................................................ 8

IV. Components of a Marketing Strategy .........................................................................................10

V. Specific Marketing Strategies..........................................................................................................11

Strategies for Positive Branding ..........................................................................................................11

Differentiated Marketing Strategies by Segment ...............................................................................13

Uninitiated Business Engagement Strategies .....................................................................................13

Inclusive Business Engagement Strategies .........................................................................................14

Choir Business Engagement Strategies ...............................................................................................15

VI. Conclusion and Implementation Recommendations ................................................................. 17

Resources ................................................................................................................................................18
 Page 2 

Social Dynamics, LLC

Executive Summary

The U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Office of Disability Employment Policy’s (ODEP) 

mission has long focused on encouraging private sector employers to hire more people with 

disabilities. Sponsored initiatives such as the Disability Employment Initiative (DEI),1the 

Employment First State Leadership Mentoring Program (EFSLMP),

2

the Job Accommodation 

Network3(JAN), and the Employer Assistance and Resource Network4(EARN) operated by the 

National Technical Assistance, Policy, and Research Center for Employers on the Employment 

of People with Disabilities5

(NETAC), as well as strategic partnerships with the U.S. Business 

Leadership Network6(USBLN), the Society for Human Resource Management7(SHRM), and 

the National Industry Liaison Group8(NILG), have all focused on addressing the long-standing 

unemployment and labor force participation inequities experienced by people with disabilities. 

The following white paper presents a new employer outreach approach developed during the 

course of ODEP’s Business Case for Hiring People with Disabilities research. This approach is 

based on research conducted by Social Dynamics, LLC, the Altarum Institute, and a research 

team from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania led by Dr. Peter Cappelli, the 

George W. Taylor Professor of Management and Director of Wharton’s Center for Human 

Resources. 

Although the Business Case was originally intended as a quantitatively based argument for 

hiring people with disabilities, literature review findings from the research ultimately revealed a 

lack of evidence for quantitative advantages for firms hiring employees with disabilities. 

Available evidence has shown that workers with disabilities were roughly comparable in 

performance and cost to those without disabilities. In spite of this, individuals with disabilities 

historically have lower employment and labor participation rates. 

In the research examining labor market discrimination, employers choosing to exclude segments 

of the population from their potential employee pool is well established. Gary Becker (1971), the 

Nobel Prize winning economist, described the notion that if performance is equivalent, private 

firms are harming themselves financially by restricting their labor pool through discrimination 

against segments of the population. Though Becker’s research focused on women and minorities 

in the labor market, parallels can be drawn with people with disabilities in the workforce. 

However, women and minorities, unlike people with disabilities, have found increasing 

acceptance in the U.S. labor market, which begs the question, why? Although financial 

arguments based on Becker’s work are well known in economics, Dr. Cappelli and his team have 

concluded through their research that exposure to people from diverse backgrounds has had a 

 

1

 For more information, please visit: http://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/DEI.htm

2

 For more information, please visit: http://www.dol.gov/odep/media/newsroom/employmentfirststates.htm

3

 For more information, please visit: http://askjan.org

4

 For more information, please visit: http://askearn.org

5

 For more information, please visit: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/edi/p-netac.cfm

6

 For more information, please visit: http://www.usbln.org

7

 For more information, please visit: http://www.shrm.org

8

 For more information, please visit: http://www.nationalilg.org
 Page 3 

Social Dynamics, LLC

greater influence on the decline in discrimination by employers than the economic argument. For 

this reason, as well as from information gained through a comprehensive literature review and a 

series of focus groups with business leaders, Dr. Cappelli and his team at the Wharton School 

have recommended an employer engagement strategy based on common business marketing 

principles. 

Based on the Wharton team’s research, the Employer Engagement Strategy is predicated on the 

idea that humans do not make decisions, including decisions concerning whom to hire, for fully 

rational reasons. Calculations concerning return on investment (ROI) are seldom made in 

personal interactions. Instead, mental schemas concerning who is a viable employee candidate 

are influenced by psychological processes. Consequently, marketing techniques can influence 

those schemas through the development of counter-stereotypes that highlight the capabilities of 

people with disabilities while minimizing the portrayal of differences. 

To increase the effectiveness of Wharton’s proposed approach, Dr. Cappelli and his research 

team recommend segmenting the business audience into three groups (i.e., Uninitiated, 

Inclusives, and Choir). This practice recognizes that employers are at different stages in their 

inclusionary practices and have different needs and interests based on those stages. Messaging by 

ODEP that is designed to impact and reach a particular employer segment will likely prove more 

effective than efforts meant to reach all segments at once. 

Adoption of the Employer Engagement Strategy represents a potential second stage to ODEP’s 

current engagement with the business community. Further exploration of the needs and interests 

of the various segments of the business community, in order to inform a strategy that markets 

people with disabilities will require two-way communication between ODEP and the private 

sector. This conversation has the potential to highlight the many capabilities of individuals with 

disabilities and foster an open discussion with the business community about how they can tap 

those capabilities with ODEP’s assistance. 

I. Introduction

The purpose of this white paper is to describe the evolution of ideas that occurred during the 

execution of the ODEP Business Case for Hiring People with Disabilities research. Originally 

designed to update previous ODEP business cases by providing quantitative data supporting the 

value added by hiring people with disabilities, this focus was ultimately shifted in light of the 

limited research data available to support a quantitative argument. This conclusion was made 

after several months of review of past and current domestic and international business cases on 

this topic, a review of the available employment-related research and data, and conversations 

with ODEP personnel, business school researchers, and private sector business leaders. The 

available data and expressed interests of the business community have led the research team, 

comprised of Social Dynamics, LLC, Altarum Institute, and Dr. Peter Cappelli, to believe that a 

marketing approach, rather than a quantitatively based business case, is a more viable strategy 

for engaging with the business community and encouraging the hiring of people with disabilities. 

This paper will describe the findings that have led to this position, their implications for ODEP 

and its partners, and recommendations for future actions. 
 Page 4 

Social Dynamics, LLC

This paper begins by providing the historical context for the Business Case for Hiring People 

with Disabilities project and describing ODEP’s original goals for the initiative. This will be 

followed by the findings from a series of focus groups, the literature review, and conversations 

with business leaders and faculty conducted by Dr. Cappelli and his research team. Dr. Cappelli 

and his team’s application of these findings, along with their implications for employer outreach,

will then be described. These will be followed by the recommendations of the research team on a 

potential next step for ODEP’s employer engagement strategy on behalf of people with 

disabilities. 

Background on the Employment Rates of People with Disabilities 

While federal and state policies have helped create and support opportunities for people with 

disabilities to find employment, data continues to highlight the economic disparities between 

people with and without disabilities. At the heart of this disparity is a large gap in employment 

and labor force participation rates between these two groups. The DOL’s Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) released data in August 2013 showing that people with disabilities experienced 

unemployment rates nearly double that of people without disabilities (14.1 percent vs. 7.1 

percent) and had a labor force participation rate of only 20.5 percent compared to 69.1 percent 

for people without disabilities (BLS, 2013a).9The data also showed employment rates for people 

without disabilities rose from 63.8 percent to 64.2 percent, while the rate for people with 

disabilities dropped from 18 percent to 17.6 percent (BLS, 2013b). 

Data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) show similar trends in employment rates over a 

longer period of time. These data indicate that the labor force participation rate of people with 

disabilities has fallen over the last four years (from 35.2 percent in 2009 to 20.5 percent in 2013),

and at a rate higher than that for people without disabilities (a drop of almost 15 percent for 

people with disabilities as compared to only an 8 percent drop for people without disabilities; 

BLS, 2013b).

Beyond these overall statistics on the employment of people with disabilities, it is important to 

also note that employment rates tend to vary significantly by the type of disability. According to 

an analysis of 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) data, the lowest unemployment rates 

existed for people with hearing impairments (13.7 percent), while the highest rates were found 

among people with cognitive difficulties (28.1 percent). This variation has been attributed in part 

to differing levels of acceptance by employers of certain types of disabilities (Economic Systems 

Inc., 2012). 

In addition to the different unemployment rates, variances in full-time employment and average 

salary levels are seen between people with and without disabilities. People with disabilities are 

much more likely to be employed part-time versus full-time and to earn lower salaries (Schur, 

Kruse, Blasi, & Blanck, 2009). Both of these factors influence the ability of people with 

disabilities to attain self-sufficiency and live without dependence on government benefits. 

 

9

 The participation rate is the percentage of working-age people (ages 16 to 64) who are employed, and those who are 

unemployed, but looking for work. For individuals 16 years and older, the participation rate for persons with disabilities 

is 20.6 percent compared to 69.4 percent. 
 Page 5 

Social Dynamics, LLC

While a variety of factors underlie the variation in employment rates among those with and 

without disabilities (and among those with different types of disabilities), employer attitudes 

appear to be one important factor. A 2010 Harris poll showed that 43 percent of people with 

disabilities stated that they have faced some form of job discrimination (Harris Interactive, 

2010). Recent research also indicates that stereotypes and discrimination continue to exist among 

employers (Lengnick-Hall, 2007). Among the most common stereotypes are that people with 

disabilities lack the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities for employment, and that they are 

less productive and more costly to employ. In addition, Pearson et al. (2003) found that not only 

did employers have a statistically significant hiring preference for workers without disabilities, 

but that even among workers with disabilities, particular types of disabilities were more often 

accepted. Employers tended to favor workers with disabilities consisting of hearing impairments, 

followed by mobility impairments (the use of crutches) and, finally, those with mental health 

issues (depression). Furthermore, in their study, Boni-Saenz, Heinemann, Crown, and Emanuel 

(2006) identified a belief held by employers that employing people with disabilities came at a 

significant economic cost, without offsetting benefits in terms of productivity. In another study, 

Butterworth and Pitt-Catsouphes (1997) showed that human resource managers and coworkers 

worried about their own lack of expertise regarding disabilities, particularly if problems arose, 

and their difficulty accessing resources for accommodations. Moreover, in interviews with 

business executives by Lengnick-Hall, Gaunt, and Kultarni (2008), employers often showed that 

they possessed stereotypical beliefs concerning workers with disabilities that were not supported 

by research evidence, and that they were not proactive in hiring from this population. 

Beginning with passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, legislation has 

been passed and several initiatives have been mounted at the federal level with the goal of 

lessening disparities and increasing the employment rate of people with disabilities. However, 

the majority of these efforts have focused on the supply side (i.e., providing supports to people 

with disabilities such as training and accommodations) in an attempt to ready people with 

disabilities for employment. More recently, the emphasis has broadened to the demand side by 

providing resources, incentives, and support to employers to hire from this population. An 

example of this is DOL’s recent release of new regulations under Section 503 of the 

Rehabilitation Act, which established a nationwide 7 percent employment goal for qualified 

individuals with disabilities for companies doing business with the federal government. Another 

example is Executive Order 13548, “Increasing Federal Employment of Individuals With 

Disabilities.” Signed by President Obama in July 2010 to commemorate the 20th Anniversary of 

the ADA, this directive calls on federal departments and agencies to increase the recruitment, 

hiring, and retention of people with disabilities in coming years and includes a hiring goal of 

100,000 workers with disabilities by 2015. The Federal Government has also provided incentives 

and support through means such as tax credits, and demonstrations testing models promoting 

employment of people with disabilities. Examples of these initiatives include the Work 

Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC), the Disability Employment Initiative, American Job Centers, 

Social Security’s Ticket to Work program, Office or Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services Vocational Rehabilitation, and the Employment First State Leadership Mentoring 

Program. Additional resources for employers supported by the Federal Government include 

those that can be accessed through the NETAC, a collaborative that researches, influences, and 

develops inclusive employer practices and policies; through EARN, which helps employers hire 
 Page 6 

Social Dynamics, LLC

and retain workers with disabilities; and through JAN, a grant that provides free consultation to 

employers on worksite accommodations for their employees with disabilities.

Though employment gains for people with disabilities have been documented in the communities 

targeted by these initiatives, as well as among employers who have utilized the WOTC, little 

improvement is indicated in the national statistics on labor force participation and employment 

rates of people with disabilities, reinforcing the need for increased and innovative intervention. 

II. Past Efforts to Use a Business Case Approach

Prior to the Wharton research, a primary strategy to increase employer demand had been to 

document that employing workers with disabilities results in economic benefits to employers, or 

in other words, to build a “business case” for employers. Several limited studies seemed to 

support the business case. Research as early as 1949 found that employees in the manufacturing 

sector with disabilities received good performance ratings, had lower rates of absenteeism and 

turnover, and had insurance costs in line with employees without disabilities (U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce, Department of Manufacture, 1949). Subsequent studies and case studies developed 

by various researchers and by EARN continued to demonstrate that workers with disabilities 

have comparable performance ratings to their colleagues without disabilities, that they actually 

have higher retention rates once employed, and that any associated costs for accommodations 

were relatively minor (Hindle, Noble, & Phillips, 1999; Hernandez & McDonald, 2007; Nicolas, 

Kauder, Krepico, & Baker, 2011). Studies such as these appeared to suggest a robust economic 

business case for the employment of people with disabilities. And though anecdotally these 

studies provide evidence to support a business case, more data is needed to substantiate a global 

economic business case. 

In 2006, DOL conducted a national summit with business leaders, researchers, and advocates 

(the “Employer Perspectives on Workers with Disabilities” National Summit) to develop a 

research agenda to better understand the reasons for the low employment rate of people with 

disabilities and identify possible strategies for improving their employment outcomes (MANILA 

Consulting Group, Inc., 2007). A continuation of this discussion occurred in 2008 during the 

“Strengthening the Intersection of Demand-Side and Supply-Side Disability Employment 

Research” National Summit. Through the efforts of ODEP—and particularly through its EARN 

resource center—extensive outreach and education efforts have been mounted to share these 

summit findings with employers. These efforts often have focused on distributing information to 

the professional networks used by businesses in an effort to guide leadership and human 

resources efforts. These networks include the Conference Board, the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce, the Society for Human Resource Managers (SHRM), the National Industry Liaison 

Group (NILG), and the United States Business Leadership Network (USBLN). Yet, despite these 

data and outreach, significant progress toward the greater employment of people with disabilities 

has failed to materialize. 

In 2012, acting on interest generated during the 2006 and 2008 national summits, in addition to 

the ongoing interest expressed by members of the USBLN (MANILA Consulting Group, Inc., 
 Page 7 

Social Dynamics, LLC

2007 and 2008), ODEP commissioned Economic Systems, Inc., in consultation with Dr. 

Cappelli, to develop the Business Case for Hiring People with Disabilities. Economic Systems 

was directed to strengthen the business case. Specifically, their efforts were to include collecting 

case study and empirical evidence on themes of relevance to the business community, such as 

ROI, human capital, workforce diversity, and market opportunity as they pertain to employees 

with disabilities. Their findings, though limited by the availability data, aligned with previous 

research and anecdotes that suggests that the cost, performance, and productivity of workers with 

disabilities were comparable to workers without disabilities. The data also suggested workers 

with disabilities experienced higher retention rates. Finally, though less quantifiable, employers 

reported that hiring workers with disabilities contributed to the general benefits of a diverse 

workplace (Economic Systems Inc., 2012). 

It was during the course of developing this new business case that the need for a different 

strategy began to emerge: the Employer Engagement Strategy. Despite the research that suggests 

that people with disabilities are vastly underutilized in the labor force, and that there are no real 

business-related reasons why this should be the case, the business case approach has not made a 

significant impact on the business community. Although technical assistance and employer 

incentives are more available than ever, they have thus far failed to show substantial employment 

results. Ultimately, it now seems apparent that the decision to hire people with disabilities often 

appears to hinge not just on business-related factors, but on broader cultural factors.

III. Wharton’s Proposed Shift to a Marketing Approach

Underlying Philosophy 

The Employer Engagement Strategy was developed as a result of Dr. Cappelli’s work with 

Social Dynamics in 2013 and is based on two principles. The first principle is that human 

behavior particularly that which is associated with hiring decisions, is not strictly rational. 

Quantitative data showing the advantages or disadvantages of a practice, in this case hiring or not 

hiring people with disabilities, may not actually change an individual’s behavior. The second is 

that these behaviors can be influenced through the application of psychological principles. 

Evidence of the irrationality of discriminating against certain subgroups of the labor pool has 

long been available. Gary Becker (1971), the Nobel Prize winning economist, theorized that 

markets eventually punish employers who exhibit discrimination in hiring. These employers 

limit their employee pool, and thus have a smaller and more competitive selection, which 

becomes more costly as wages are increased due to the limited pool from which employers can 

purchase the services of employees. In spite of this competitive disadvantage, and the 

consequence of increasing the wages a firm must pay, many employers continue to make the 

irrational decision to not hire from various segments of the population. 

Becker’s seminal work on discriminatory hiring practices focused on gender and racial 

discrimination. Combined with the findings from earlier business cases and associated research, 

Dr. Cappelli and his team concluded that significant parallels exist between Becker’s 

examination on discrimination and the difficulties associated with impacting the employment 
 Page 8 

Social Dynamics, LLC

rate for people with disabilities. They concluded that there was no rational reason for employers 

to not consider people with disabilities as potential employees. In fact, to not do so was 

associated with an additional cost to employers. Unfortunately, datasets of sufficient size 

allowing for an examination of discrimination in relation to disability status, functional 

limitation, work experience, and job characteristics are not available to provide a more nuanced 

explanation (Baldwin & Johnson, 2006). However, if the argument that people with disabilities, 

with appropriate accommodations, are as productive as people without disabilities is correct (and 

the evidence we do have does suggest this), then only discrimination, work experience, and job 

characteristics can be expected to factor significantly in an analysis of the hiring patterns of 

people with disabilities. A French experimental study conducted by Ravaud, Madiot, and Ville 

(1992) supports this position by showing that highly qualified applicants without disabilities 

were 1.78 times more likely to receive a favorable response from employers than applicants with 

comparable qualifications who disclosed a physical disability in their application. They also 

found that moderately qualified applicants without disabilities were more than 3.2 times more 

likely to receive a positive response from application materials than comparably credentialed 

applicants with a physical disability. These findings support the notion that the perceived 

capabilities and workplace “fit” of applicants with disabilities are highly subjective and based on 

the perception of the employers. The research team believes that this perception (and the 

subsequent behaviors it initiates) is the foundation of the problem presented and that it is 

alterable through the use of psychological principles.

To address the irrationality of the hiring discrimination exhibited by employers, Dr. Cappelli and 

his team examined the issue of hiring people with disabilities from a business marketing 

perspective. As such, the team examined people with disabilities as a brand and employers as 

consumers who we want to recognize and hire (i.e., buy) people with disabilities. This approach 

recognizes humans as not fully rational actors and that their decisions are influenced by 

psychological processes. The fields of consumer psychology and social psychology have the 

most bearing on the approach advocated by Dr. Cappelli and his research team. In their 

presentation for the American Psychological Association, Loroz and Cronley (n.d.) define 

consumer psychology as the study of the human responses to product- and service-related 

information and experiences. This field explores the emotional, cognitive, and behavioral 

responses of consumers prior to the purchase, use, and disposal of goods and services. Consumer 

psychology principles will inform how people with disabilities are marketed to private-sector 

employers. Social psychology, meanwhile, focuses on how the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors 

of people are influenced by the actual, implied, or imaginary presence of others (Allport, 1985).

Principles from these two fields will form the basis of the marketing strategy advocated by Dr. 

Cappelli and his research team. Wharton’s Employer Engagement Strategy recognizes the 

influence of these psychological responses as employers consider an employee candidate. 

Focus Group Findings 

To expand upon the earlier work of Dr. Cappelli and Economic Systems, the research team 

decided to explore the emotional, cognitive, and behavioral responses of employers through two 

virtual focus groups, known as the Virtual Business Leadership Information Exchanges 

(VBLIE), consisting of a total of 14 participants from 12 private employers. Conducted using 
 Page 9 

Social Dynamics, LLC

web conferencing technology, the VBLIEs involved volunteer participants from various levels of 

corporate leadership, many of whom had no experience with the employment of people with 

disabilities. Participants were also recruited from the employers who actively employ people 

with disabilities with the assistance of Mary Wright, formerly of the Conference Board. Each 

participant volunteered with the understanding that the employment of people with disabilities 

would be discussed. Questions were developed and presented by Dr. Cappelli to the focus groups 

on March 11 and 13, 2013, with data collection provided by Social Dynamics and its 

subcontractor, Altarum Institute. Findings from the VBLIEs were prepared by Social Dynamics 

and presented to ODEP in a brief on March 29, 2013. 

In both focus groups, respondents affirmed their belief that human resource colleagues, as well 

as other coworkers, felt uncomfortable around people with disabilities and had a mistaken belief 

that they were suffering (empathetically interpreting the person as being in a perpetual state of 

distress because of their disability). These findings were similar to those found in a series of 

focus groups by Fraser et al. (2010), who observed low coworker receptivity to colleagues with 

disabilities, particularly in medium-sized firms. Respondents believed that this emotional 

response was based on lack of exposure to people with disabilities and, in particular, limited

opportunities to see them as productive colleagues. To this point, several VBLIE participants 

shared experiences of colleagues whose personal experiences working alongside employees with 

disabilities had altered their perspectives and made them enthusiastic supporters of inclusionary 

initiatives within their firms. For those without those personal experiences, stories and accounts 

from a trusted network of professional colleagues were often inspiring enough to compel them to 

initiate their own programs to hire workers with disabilities. These personal experiences and 

anecdotes all highlighted the abilities of the workers rather than their disabilities and supported 

Wharton’s employer engagement research. 

VBLIE respondents also shared that they possessed a lack of knowledge on how best to identify 

qualified employee candidates with disabilities. They were interested in hiring from the 

population, and recognized diversity, public relations, and federal compliance benefits in doing 

so. However, they stated that vocational rehabilitation agencies presented them with candidates 

who lacked the prerequisite skills needed to be viable candidates. Furthermore, employee 

recruitment strategies were becoming more passive, with LinkedIn and web-based application 

processes becoming much more prominent recruitment tools. These changes have contributed to 

fewer personal initial contacts with potential employees and fewer opportunities for candidates to 

disclose having a disability. This less personal approach has impacted employers interested in 

hiring individuals with disabilities due to restricted opportunities to identify and select viable 

candidates for preferential hiring initiatives 

Finally, respondents shared that they and their colleagues are interested in changing their 

behavior concerning hiring and integrating employees with disabilities into the workplace. They 

are asking for clear metrics, strategies, and technical assistance that they can use to educate their 

colleagues and expose them to examples of successful inclusion of workers with disabilities in 

the workplace. Of the material currently available, several respondents stated that there was an 

overabundance and that discerning what was considered quality guidance was difficult. The 

VBLIE participants, representing employers interested in hiring and integrating employees with 

disabilities into their firms, were interested, but did not know how to begin. 
 Page 10

Social Dynamics, LLC

IV. Components of a Marketing Strategy

Keller and Lehmann (2006, p. 751) describe a brand as a “lens through which the words and 

actions of a company, its competitors, and the environment in general are converted to thoughts, 

feelings, images, beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes, etc., about a product.” They continue to 

state that brands are constructed with the goal of developing a “stimulus-response” among 

consumers. At present, the brand of people with disabilities is nebulous. The image generated 

when the word disability is used does not encompass the full scope of the population. 

Associations frequently focus upon images with clearly observable manifestations of difference,

such as the use of a wheelchair or sensory equipment. As Baldwin and Johnson (2006) observed, 

people with disabilities are a highly heterogeneous group and, as such, are difficult to study or 

classify using either recognized definitions or psychological schema. 

In addition to the two major principles previously described, the Employer Engagement Strategy 

is based on two major goals. The first of these is constructing a solid and inclusive brand for 

people with disabilities that can be marketed to employers to provoke positive emotional, 

cognitive, and behavioral responses. Basu and Wang (2009, p. 78) argue that “branding is a 

process of creating identity for a product.” Interviews with the University of Pennsylvania’s 

Executive Human Resource Officer and surveys within the Wharton School provide evidence 

that people with disabilities are not widely viewed as a component of diversity initiatives—they 

do not have a solid identity. Furthermore, the mental association of people with disabilities 

outside of the advocacy community is likely different from that within it. As observed by 

Baldwin and Johnson (2006), the disability advocacy community has been highly critical of 

medical models or schema focusing on functional limitations. Policy positions influenced by 

these arguments have limited researchers’ opportunities to study this diverse population by 

restricting the data available for econometric analysis. These positions have also created a 

definition of disability that is nebulous and poorly recognized by the private sector. Due to the 

word disability reflecting such a heterogeneous group of individuals and conditions, the business 

community is frequently unable to make positive assumptions concerning employment 

candidates based on their knowledge of the brand. 

The Employer Engagement Strategy brand for people with disabilities would focus on 

competency, skill, and similarity to the populations without disabilities. Louvet (2007) 

recognized that employee candidates with disabilities were frequently evaluated more negatively 

based on perceptions of social fit within a job function. This employer perception did not align 

with the capabilities of the candidate. To address it, disability advocates and their governmental 

partners should provide an experience “that challenges stereotypical expectations... which 

results in an experience that has cognitive consequences across multiple domains” (Crisp & 

Turner, 2011, p. 242). Wharton suggests doing this through the creation of counter-stereotypes,

utilizing and managing the empathy held by employers toward the population, and highlighting 

commonalities with the population of individuals without disabilities. This goal of constructing a 

new brand aligns with the shift from medical models of disabilities and promotes a focus on 

highlighting the abilities of people with disabilities. 

The second major goal of the Employer Engagement Strategy is for proponents of hiring 

individuals with disabilities to conceptualize the private employment sector as a market 
 Page 11

Social Dynamics, LLC

comprised of different segments with distinct levels of interest in employing people with 

disabilities, varying levels of knowledge, and particular technical assistance requirements. The 

research team recommends tailoring outreach strategies to best suit the needs and interests of the 

customers within each segment. Similarly, these different segments require different levels of 

technical assistance once interest in employing people with disabilities is initiated. 

Dr. Cappelli’s research team at the Wharton School identified three distinct segments within the 

private employment sector. The first of these groups can be described as being at the Uninitiated 

level. Employers at this level have not demonstrated either active or passive initiatives to recruit 

employees with disabilities or other diverse groups. Many discourage disclosure due to a desire 

to minimize accommodations and maintain the existing work social structure (Harlan & Roberts, 

1998). Firms within this segment frequently lack awareness of the capabilities of employees with 

disabilities, do not know of the incentives that are available to them to encourage changes in 

hiring behaviors, and require the highest level of guidance and technical assistance in order to 

modify employment practices. The research team believes that this is the largest of the three 

segments, and also the most difficult to reach. 

The second segment identified by the research team is at an Inclusive level of engagement in 

inclusive hiring practices. Employers at this level have established programs to recruit select 

minority groups, but have not yet recognized employees with disabilities as a target group in 

their diversity initiatives. Firms in this segment have already recognized the contributions of 

their non-majority employees and are interested in recruiting more. As with the Uninitiated 

segment, research has shown that these employers lack awareness of disabilities and job 

accommodations; however, their interest in employees with disabilities increases with exposure 

and experience (Able Trust, 2003; Copeland, Chan, Bezyak, & Fraser, 2010). Recognition of the 

capabilities of a new labor pool (i.e., candidates with disabilities) could lead to targeted 

recruitment efforts for employees with disabilities as well. The research team believes that this 

segment is the most viable group for the outreach efforts that will be described. 

The third segment identified by the research team is best described as being the Choir in their 

hiring and retention practices. Typically larger firms, Choir employers have established 

initiatives to recruit and retain employees with disabilities and are widely recognized as 

advocates for the population. Firms within this segment frequently have established relationships 

with ODEP, as well as with organizations such as the USBLN, the NILG, and the SHRM. These 

companies can be recognized for their accomplishments and invited to serve as paragons and 

mentors from which firms developing more inclusive hiring practices can look to for guidance 

and inspiration. 

V. Specific Marketing Strategies

Strategies for Positive Branding 

Having established that negative stereotypes and bias, rather than economic factors, are leading 

to employers’ reluctance to proactively employ people with disabilities, the challenge is finding 
 Page 12

Social Dynamics, LLC

ways to dispel these attitudes and replace them with positive perceptions. The Wharton research 

findings point to a few ways this can happen through positive branding of people with 

disabilities. 

As described earlier, the goal of branding is to lead the buyer (employer) to a choice based on the 

trust and reliability of the brand. This brand will contribute to an automatic association of people 

with disabilities as possessing the qualities of competency, skill, and similarity to the people 

without disabilities population. The Wharton research team advocates doing this through several 

strategies aimed at rebranding people with disabilities. According to Wharton, despite the fact 

that stereotypical responses tend to be “automatic, fixed, and inescapable,” research provides 

evidence that these responses are malleable (Blair, 2002). Support for a rebranding approach 

also comes from research in the disability area. Louvet (2007) examined how job applicants with 

or without disabilities were evaluated in relation to the nature of a job. The primary conclusion 

reached was that to promote the employment of people with disabilities it is important not only 

to improve their level of qualifications, but also to change the nature of the perceptions that 

surround them. 

According to Wharton, education is the key to bringing about a change in stereotypes. The 

following are the education strategies recommended by the research team based on our research 

for the rebranding of people with disabilities in a positive light: 

Create a self and social motive — If people have a strong motivation for adopting a new 

perception, they may automatically inhibit or moderate their negative stereotypes and 

replace them with positive ones. They are most likely to do so when they see a benefit to 

their own self-image or when the stereotypes they hold appear to be counter to social 

norms. To create these two conditions, the research team suggests that ODEP promote 

employer practices such as rewarding employees who recommend the hiring of 

colleagues with disabilities and include people with disabilities in hiring selection 

committees. 

Promote counter-stereotypes — When people view information that does not support 

their current stereotypes, or positively interact with others with opposing views, they are 

more likely to change their personal stereotypes. Promoting opposing counterstereotypical associations effectively challenges the dominance of stereotypes in an

individual’s mental schema. ODEP strategies in this area might include highlighting 

positive contributions of successful employees with disabilities, and the use of keynote 

speakers with disabilities who are successful or famous. These strategies would be 

particularly effective if the events and topics are not about disability. 

Focus on attention — Stereotypes dominate unless the perceiver’s attention is shifted 

instead to learning about the person’s other unique characteristics. In this way, diverting 

the focus of an individual’s attention can be effective in minimizing or changing 

stereotypes. Portrayals that highlight an individual with disabilities as capable, confident, 

and collaborative with colleagues without disabilities draw attention to the individual’s 

capabilities rather than any disability they possess. 
 Page 13

Social Dynamics, LLC

Configuration of stimulus cues — Even slight changes in the context (i.e., the setting or 

activity) portrayed or observed can have a major effect on automatic stereotypes. 

“Positive cueing” could be provided by ODEP in posters and brochures that may include 

depicting people with disabilities as successful professionals, in social settings, or acting 

as mentors or volunteers helping others. 

Development of membership groups — The development of career-specific membership 

groups that can be used to develop professional mentoring and networking capabilities, as 

well as an identifiable recruitment pool for companies interested in hiring employees with 

disabilities, is recommended. There are various examples of these membership groups 

that have been developed by non-majority segments of the population. Examples include 

the Society of Black Engineers, the Association of Latino Professionals in Finance and 

Accounting (ALPHA), and the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association 

(NLGJA). Employers can also develop membership groups, known as Employee 

Resource Groups10 (ERGs), that are composed of employees with disabilities. These 

groups can serve in an advisory role during the recruitment, retention, and strategic 

planning process as their employer explores the capabilities of employees with 

disabilities and initiatives designed to employ them. 

Differentiated Marketing Strategies by Segment 

Segmenting employers by similar levels of advancement in the hiring of people with disabilities 

is believed by Wharton to offer three distinct advantages to ODEP’s efforts. These benefits 

include: 

More effective tailoring of marketing content and messaging; 

A better understanding of the types of incentives that will be most effective for a 

particular business; and 

Offering a means by which employers can gauge where they are and how they can 

improve. 

In the discussion below, differentiated strategies by employer market segment are described. 

Uninitiated Business Engagement Strategies 

Four key strategies are recommended by Wharton for marketing to businesses at the Uninitiated 

level. These are to suggest, incentivize, nurture, and guide. As a primary tool in suggesting and 

guiding these employers, Wharton suggests the use of success stories rather than statistics. The 

underlying rationale for this strategy is that employers at this level more often need to see that 

hiring people can be done and can benefit them. Furthermore, the more specific the cases, the 

more effective a level of detail is needed to provide some guidance for how they can move 

forward. In contrast, Wharton warns that statistics are less effective with this group. In fact, 

knowing that discrimination is widespread may make it seem more defensible for them to also 

 

10 Also known as Affinity Groups, Diversity Councils, and Business Network Groups. 
 Page 14

Social Dynamics, LLC

discriminate. The case study resources available through EARN provide a valuable resource for 

this strategy. 

Wharton also suggests promoting empathy to help incentivize employers’ change efforts. As 

found in a national survey of employers and consumers, a positive experience with an employee 

with a disability in a company diminishes their fear of hiring others with disabilities (Siperstein, 

Romano, Mohler, & Parker, 2006). According to Wharton, through desensitization, the greater 

the exposure of companies to people with disabilities, the more positive attitudes within the 

company will be. Empathy can also be developed through mental cueing as described under the 

rebranding strategies above. These efforts should focus on showing that people with disabilities 

are just like people without disabilities. However, it is critical that efforts to raise levels of 

empathy guard against beliefs that people with disabilities are suffering, as this belief may lead 

fellow employees to feel uncomfortable. 

As the Uninitiated-level employers are those with the farthest to go in terms of an equitable 

workforce, Wharton also emphasizes the need to nurture this group. Their incremental steps 

toward improvement and the length of time needed for meaningful advancements in this group 

need to be acknowledged. 

Inclusive Business Engagement Strategies 

A primary challenge for the Inclusive group of employers is gaining their understanding that 

people with disabilities are a critical group for inclusion in their existing efforts related to 

affirmative action and building an inclusive work culture. A small poll conducted by Wharton’s 

research team on their MBA students showed that while 70 percent associated “equal 

employment opportunity” with race and ethnicity, and 74 percent linked it to gender, only 14 

percent thought of people with disabilities. 

Additional support for pursuing more inclusive affirmative action efforts is found in the current 

nature of the global business landscape. Under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of 

Persons with Disabilities, 110 countries have established goals and expectations for the 

employment of people with disabilities. While the United States has not ratified the Convention, 

it is likely that global U.S. companies will do business in countries that have ratified the treaty. 

Operations conducted within these countries will be subject to requirements mandated by the 

Convention (The Conference Board, 2013). 

A second vital area of understanding for these companies is in the recognition of the size of the 

population with disabilities, both in terms of as an employee pool and as a market for their 

products/services. Recent statistics from EARN (AskEARN, 2013) show that one of the largest 

population groups and market segments in the United States is comprised of people with 

disabilities. This population—36 million strong—comprises approximately 12 percent of the 

U.S. population. 

As viewed by Wharton, a particularly useful strategy for encouraging advances in employing 

people with disabilities among the Inclusive group is peer-to-peer mentoring from the Choir
 Page 15

Social Dynamics, LLC

group. Findings from the Disability Case Study Research Consortium (2008)11 indicate that such 

efforts need to be multilayered, including managers at all levels. Within this research, it was 

found that when managers believed the benefits of hiring people with disabilities outweighed the 

costs, employees’ perceptions of prejudice lessened. 

Choir Business Engagement Strategies 

While Choir businesses have progressed to the point of providing inclusive employment cultures 

with mechanisms in place to assure affirmative action in recruiting, hiring, supporting, and 

retaining people with disabilities, they still may face hurdles. As voiced in the VBLIEs, finding 

well-qualified candidates with disabilities and encouraging self-disclosure are often issues they 

continue to face. In addition, because of their attentiveness to information about issues related to 

people with disabilities, they sometimes feel overwhelmed and confused by the volume of data 

and resources available. 

As recommended by Wharton, support to this group of employers should include tools and 

mechanisms to improve the matching of job candidates with disabilities to job openings. This 

support must cover improved determination and development of the needed skills for today’s 

labor market, and refined tools for the linking of qualified candidates to available jobs. 

Wharton’s suggestion for meeting these needs are:

Create new search tools: Employers want a “plug and play” database through which 

they can reach a broad audience of people with disabilities.

Improve training: There is a need for facilitated discussions between employers and 

education and training agencies in order to provide these agencies with accurate 

information to train people with disabilities in relevant skills. 

In relation to this second recommendation, it has been found that using demand-side employment 

research on the largest or fastest-growing areas of employment and the skill sets needed for these 

demand occupations can be effective. Employers are less risk-averse in occupations where the 

demand is high and the supply of qualified workers is low. Thus, preparing people with 

disabilities for these occupations will increase their chances of being hired (Chan, Strauser, 

Gervey, & Lee, 2010). 

Complicating efforts to hire people with disabilities is the fact that many times out of fear of 

discrimination, people with disabilities do not self-identify. Because of this, employers do not 

always know if their affirmative action efforts have been successful and whether they are 

meeting their goals in this area. A recent survey by Cornell University’s Employment and 

Disability Institute and the American Association of People with Disabilities states that 

workplace climate is absolutely critical to self-disclosure—progressive policies alone are not 

enough to encourage employees with disabilities to self-disclose. The study further highlights the 

importance of workplace context in the decision to self-disclose, reporting that “individuals with 

disabilities rated highly knowing their employer has made concerted efforts to create a disability 

 

11 The Disability Case Study Research Consortium was an ODEP initiative commissioned to develop a standard design 

methodology and conduct case study research to identify ways in which an organization’s structures, values, policies and 

day-to-day practices, facilitate the employment of people with disabilities. 
 Page 16

Social Dynamics, LLC

friendly workplace (56.8 percent), knowing that the employer was actively recruiting people 

with disabilities (50.5 percent), knowing of other employees who had disclosed and were 

successful (49.9 percent), and having a disability was included in the employer’s diversity 

statement (48.9 percent)” (Von Schrader, Malzer, & Bruyere, 2013, pg. 10).

Choir

Create search tools for job matching 

Improve targeted training efforts 

Provide employers with strategies to encourage self-disclosure 

Provide employers with more structured and streamlined resources 

Inclusive

Education 

Peer-to-peer mentoring 

Uninitiated

Success stories rather than statistics 

Desensitization to promote empathy Nurture progress

On the basis of these findings, the research team suggests that Choir-level businesses encourage 

self-disclosure. Some avenues businesses may take to accomplish this goal include: 

Ensuring that their support of people with disabilities is highly visible; 

Advertising their success by sharing statistics on the percentage of people with 

disabilities employed in their company; and 

Creating ERGs for people with disabilities to promote peer-to peer-support.

Additional feedback from the VBLIEs with Choir-level business representatives indicated that 

they feel that the current information available to them is “overwhelming and disorganized.” 

More specific comments from these groups included that much of the existing information and 

data is neither helpful nor reliable; there are too many metrics and it is unclear which metrics are 

relevant; and tools are not available to benchmark and improve their performance. Some of the 

participants also felt that additional resources are needed to individually assist them with 

questions they have about certain candidates or accommodations. In response to these expressed 

needs, Wharton recommends that the following resources be developed by ODEP: 

A “help desk”: Live support for hiring managers who have questions about hiring people 

with disabilities. 

Measures of progress: Develop effective metrics to measure inclusion and help 

employers track their performance. 

A road map: Organize best practices and offer frameworks so that companies have a 

clear path to improve over time.
 Page 17

Social Dynamics, LLC

Network of vetted consultants: Review consulting firms to create a vetted list for 

employers. 

While these resources were suggested for the Choir-level organizations, they would also be 

useful for all businesses in all market segments. Thus, it is recommended that ODEP make them 

widely available to the business community as a whole.

VI. Conclusion and Implementation Recommendations

In their critique of public health messaging, Basu and Wang (2009, p. 85) contend that many 

outreach campaigns suffer from “fuzzy” branding that does not promote the same level of 

interest among the target audience as those for traditional products. This is frequently due to oneway, top-down promotion that lacks the tactical expertise and commitment from the promoter to 

promote, protect, and sustain their effort. These observations should be considered in light of the 

approach recommended by the research team. 

The strategies presented here represent two-way conversations with the private sector, and 

recognize that not every segment of the private sector is driven by the same needs and interests. 

Three distinct markets have been described: a Choir group that has made efforts to hire people 

with disabilities; an Inclusive group that is persuadable to do so; and an Uninitiated group that 

does not yet recognize why they should. The Choir group of employers needs tools to make their 

hiring efforts more effective. The Inclusive group needs to view people with disabilities as an 

additional diverse group to be considered under their inclusion strategies, with appropriate 

mentoring from outside organizations. And the Uninitiated group needs to be educated on the 

capabilities of people with disabilities, and the incentives and initiatives available to assist them 

in changing their hiring practices. Though certain common approaches, such as developing a 

capability-focused brand for people with disabilities that offers a strong counter-stereotype are 

presented, the research team believes that a broad outreach strategy will not address the 

particular needs of each of these segments as effectively as distinct, targeted interventions. 

One could argue that many of the tools and metrics currently available address needs identified 

within the research literature, expressed by this project’s VBLIE participants, and shared by staff 

from the Wharton School. Yet, those who represented the business community (Wharton staff, 

faculty, and students; VBLIE participants) in this project did not share knowledge of these 

resources, or stated that they were overwhelmed by the volume of resources available. Messages 

are not being heard effectively by the business community, particularly by those at the Inclusive 

and Uninitiated levels of inclusionary practice. A dialogue with these segments of the business 

community would assist ODEP in determining if resources presently available can meet the 

community’s needs and whether their current messages and tools are reaching those who need 

them.

The Employer Engagement Strategy represents a potential second stage to the efforts that ODEP 

has undertaken since 2001. In its focus on the brand of people with disabilities, it shows by 

example the numerous employment capabilities of people with disabilities. Furthermore, by 
 Page 18

Social Dynamics, LLC

highlighting the commonalities shared between those with disabilities and those without, it 

reinforces that any differences are minor and do not overshadow the productive capabilities of 

any individual. In addition, the advocated market segmentation represents a conversation with 

the business community that asks, “What can I tell you about my capabilities?” “How can I help 

you work through your apprehensions?” and “How can we enhance our employment 

partnership?” The Employer Engagement Strategy recognizes the voice and influence that 

ODEP, its partners, and the advocacy community have acquired, and endeavors to use it for a 

pragmatic conversation with the business community concerning employment. This conversation 

should be held under the presumption that all that engage in it are equals. 

Resources

The Able Trust. (2003). Dispelling myths of an untapped workforce: A study of employer attitudes toward 

hiring people with disabilities. Retrieved from 

http://www.abletrust.org/news/Able_Trust_Employer_Attitudes_Study.pdf

Allport, G. W. (1985). The historical background of social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson 

(Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (Vol. 1, pp.1–46). New York, NY: Random House. 

Ask EARN. (2013). Disability: Workforce trends. Retrieved from 

http://askearn.org/refdesk/Diversity_Goals/Disability_Trends

Baldwin, M. L., & Johnson, W. G. (2006). A critical review of studies of discrimination against workers 

with disabilities. In W. M. Rodgers (Ed.) Handbook on the economics of discrimination (pp. 119–

160). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Basu, A. & Wang, J. (2009). The role of branding in public health campaigns. Journal of Communication 

Management, 13(1), 77–91. 

Becker, G. S. (1971). The economics of discrimination. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. 

Blair, I. V. (2002) The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personality and Social 

Psychology Review, 6(3), 242–261. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0603_8 

Boni-Saenz, A. A., Heinemann, A. W., Crown, D. S., & Emanuel, L. L. (2006). The business of 

employing people with disabilities: Four case studies. Organizational Ethics: Healthcare, Business, 

and Policy, 3(1) 3–19.

Butterworth, J., & Pitt-Catsouphes, M. (1997). Employees with disabilities: What managers, supervisors, 

and co-workers have to say. Employment in the Mainstream, 22(1), 5–15. 

Chan, F., Strauser, D., Gervey, R., & Lee, E. (2010). Introduction to demand-side factors related to 

employment of people with disabilities. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(4), 407–411. 

The Conference Board. (2013). Leveling the playing field: Attracting, engaging, and advancing people 

with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.conferenceboard.org/publications/publicationdetail.cfm?publicationid=2430

Copeland, J., Chan, F., Bezyak, J., & Fraser, R. T. (2010). Assessing cognitive and affective reactions of 

employers toward people with disabilities in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 

20(4), 427–434. 
 Page 19

Social Dynamics, LLC

Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2011). Cognitive adaptation to the experience of social and cultural 

diversity. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 242–266. 

Disability Case Study Research Consortium. (2008). Conducting and benchmarking inclusive 

employment policies, practices, and culture. Retrieved from the Office of Disability Employment 

Policy Web site: http://www.dol.gov/odep/research/CorporateCultureFinalReport.pdf

Economic Systems Inc. (2012). Business case for hiring people with disabilities (Unpublished white 

paper). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy. 

Fraser, R. T., Johnson, K., Hebert, J., Ajzen, I., Copeland, J., Brown, P., & Chan, F. (2010). 

Understanding employers’ hiring intentions in relation to qualified workers with disabilities: 

Preliminary findings. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(4), 420–426. 

Harlan, S. L., & Robert, P. M. (1998). The social construction of disability in organizations: Why 

employers resist reasonable accommodation. Work and Occupations, 25(4), 397–435. 

Harris Interactive. (2010). The ADA, 20 years later. Retrieved from the 2010 Kessler Foundation/NOD 

Web site: http://www.2010disabilitysurveys.org/pdfs/surveyresults.pdf

Hernandez, B., & McDonald, K. (2007). Exploring the bottom line: A study of the costs and benefits of workers 

with disabilities. Chicago, IL: DePaul University. 

Hindle, K., Noble, J., & Phillips, B. (1999). Are workers with a disability less productive? An empirical 

challenge to a suspect axiom. Retrieved from 

http://www.kevinhindle.com/publications/J37.Disability%201%20ANZAM%20Version%20251199.

pdf

Increasing Federal Employment of Individuals With Disabilities, 75 Fed. Reg. 45,039 (proposed Jul. 30, 

2010). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-07-30/pdf/2010-18988.pdf

Keller, K. L. & Lehmann, D. R. (2006). Brands and branding: Research findings and future priorities. 

Marketing Science, 25(6), 740–759. 

Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2007). Hidden talent: How leading companies hire, retain, and benefit from people 

with disabilities. Westport, CT: Praeger. 

Lengnick-Hall, M. L., Gaunt, P. M., & Kulkarni, M. (2008). Overlooked and underutilized: People with 

disabilities are an untapped human resource. Human Resource Management, 47(2), 255–273. 

Loroz, P. S., & Cronley, M. (n.d.). Consumer psychology. Retrieved from 

http://www.apa.org/education/k12/consumer-psychology.pdf

Louvet, E. (2007). Social judgment toward job applicants with disabilities: Perception of personal 

qualities and competences. Rehabilitation Psychology, 52(3), 297–303. 

MANILA Consulting Group, Inc. (2007). Employer perspectives on workers with disabilities: A national 

summit to develop a research agenda. Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Education Web site: 

http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/ise-report--employer-perspectives.pdf

MANILA Consulting Group, Inc. (2008). Strengthening the intersection of demand-side and supply-side 

disability employment research: Toward a coordinated federal research agenda. Retrieved from the 

Interagency Committee on Disability Research Web site: 

http://www.icdr.ed.gov/images/pdfs/ISEConferenceSummaryReport.pdf

Nicolas, R., Kauder, R., Krepcio, K., & Baker, D. (2011). Ready and able: Addressing labor market 

needs and building productive careers for people with disabilities through collaborative approaches. 

Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/odep/categories/workforce/ReadyAble/ReadyAble.pdf
 Page 20

Social Dynamics, LLC

Pearson, V., Yip, N., Ip, F., Lo, E. M. K., Ho, K. K., & Hui, H. (2003). To tell or not to tell. The Journal 

of Rehabilitation, 69(4), 35–38.

Ravaud, J., Madiot, B., & Ville, I. (1992). Discrimination towards disabled people seeking employment. 

Social Science & Medicine, 35(8), 951–958. 

Riley, C. (2006). Disability and business. Lebanon, NH: University Press of New England. 

Schur, L., Kruse, D., Blasi, J., & Blanck, P. (2009). Is disability disabling in all workplaces? Workplace 

disparities and corporate culture. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 48(3), 

381–410. doi:10.1111/j.1468-232X.2009.00565.x 

Siperstein, G. N., Romano, N., Mohler, A., & Parker, R. (2006). A national survey of consumer attitudes 

towards companies that hire people with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 24(1), 3–

9.

U.S. Business Leadership Network. (2013). Leading practices on disability inclusion. Retrieved from 

http://www.usbln.org/pdfdocs/2013_USBLN_US_Chamber_Leading_Practices_on_Disability_Inclusion.pdf

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Department of Manufacture. (1949). Employment of physically handicapped 

and older workers. Retrieved from 

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015073363478;view=1up;seq=3

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013a). Table A. Employment status of the civilian 

noninstitutional population by disability status and age, 2011 and 2012 annual averages. Retrieved 

from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/disabl.a.htm

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013b). Table A-6. Employment status of the 

civilian population by sex, age, and disability status, not seasonally adjusted. Retrieved from 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t06.htm

Von Schrader, S., Malzer, V., & Bruyere, S. (2013). Perspectives on disability disclosure: The importance 

of employer practices and workplace climate. Employee Responsibility and Rights Journal. Advance 

online publication. doi:10.1007/s10672-013-9227-9. 
 Page 21

Social Dynamics, LLC

Contract Number: GS10F0052T 

Order Number: DOLU129433926 

Prepared For: U.S. Department of Labor, 

Office of Disability Employment 

Policy

Authors: Robert Bartolotta, Ph.D. 

Social Dynamics, LLC

Laura Skaff, Ph.D. 

Altarum Institute

Douglas Klayman, Ph.D. 

Social Dynamics, LLC

Prepared By: Social Dynamics, LLC

481 North Frederick Avenue, Suite 410

Gaithersburg, MD 20877

Office: 301-990-1105

Toll Free: 855-990-1105

Fax: 301-990-1270

Contact Information: Robert Bartolotta, Ph.D.

RBartolotta@socialdynamicsllc.com

Douglas Klayman, Ph.D., President

dklayman@socialdynamicsllc.com