Source: https://studylib.net/doc/7790908/jan-symposium-presentation---burton-blatt-institute-at-sy..
Timestamp: 2019-06-20 23:33:18
Document Index: 652669102

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 12101', '§ 12112', '§ 12112', '§ 701', '§ 31', '§ 100', '§ 200', '§ 300', '§ 400', '§ 791', '§ 793', '§ 794', '§ 7', '§ 705', '§ 791', '§ 793', '§ 111', '§ 705', '§ 104', '§ 12102', '§ 111', '§ 705', '§ 104', '§ 104', '§ 12111', '§ 12111', '§ 12102', '§ 12102', '§ 35', '§ 12112', '§ 12111', '§ 1630', '§ 12111', '§ 12111', '§ 163', '§ 1630', '§ 12112', '§ 12900', '§ 12926']

JAN Symposium Presentation - Burton Blatt Institute at Syracuse
FILE:C:\WP51\75-4\BLANCK.DTP
Feb 02/16/16 Tue 2:57AM
PRE-PRINT, MAY 27, 2006
EMPIRICAL STUDY OF CURRENT
For additional information on disability law and policy issues, see The Burton
Blatt Institute, http://bbi.syr.edu (last visited Apr. 3, 2006). This research was in part
funded by grants to the last author from: (a) the U.S. Department of Education,
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, for the Rehabilitation
Research and Training Center (RRTC) on Workforce Invesment and Employment
Policy for Persons with Disabilities, Grant No. H133B980042-99, “It Works,” Grant
No. H133A011803; “Demand Side Employment Placement Models,” Grant No.
H133A060033, “Technology for Independence: A Community-Based Resource Center,”
Grant No. H133A021801; and the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) for
RRTC on Employment Policy for People with Disabilities, and (b) the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Disability and Employment Policy, Contract #J-9-M-20022. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of
the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Labor, or any other entity.
Nor does mention of tradenames, commercial products, or organizations imply
endorsement by the U.S. Departments of Education or Labor. The authors would like
to thank James Schmeling and LeeAnn McCoy for their helpful comments and
insights and Todd Schmidt for editing assistance.
FILE:C:WP51\75-4\BLANCK.DTP
Helen A. Schartz,** Kevin M. Schartz,***
D. J. Hendricks**** & Peter Blanck*****
Integral to employment for people with disabilities is the
Americans with Disabilities Act's (ADA)1 workplace accommodation provision that allows qualified individuals to perform
essential job functions.2 Title I of the ADA prohibits employers
from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in hiring, retention, promotion or termination. One form of
prohibited discrimination is failing to make reasonable
accommodations for a qualified job applicant or employee's
physical or mental limitations, unless the accommodations
would impose an undue hardship on the business.3 Through the
ADA's “interactive process,” employers and employees
collaborate to identify and implement workplace accommodations that are within reason.
Little empirical evidence is available to understand
employers' decisions to provide accommodations. This article
continues our line of empirical study and explores employee and
employer factors associated with employers' decisions to
accommodate current employees. Building on our previous re** Helen
A. Schartz, Ph.D., J.D., is Director of Research of the Law, Health Policy
& Disability Center (LHPDC) at the University of Iowa College of Law.
Kevin M. Schartz, Ph.D., M.C.S., is a researcher and statistical consultant at the LHPDC.
D.J. Hendricks, Ed.D., is Associate Director of the International
Center for Disability Information and Project Manager of the Job Accommodation
Network (JAN) at West Virginia University.
Peter Blanck, Ph.D., J.D., is University Professor and Chair of the
Burton Blatt Institute at Syracuse University, Kierscht Professor of Law (on leave),
and Director of the LHPDC.
1 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (2000).
2 Id. § 12112(b)(5)(A). See generally PETER BLANCK ET AL., DISABILITY, CIVIL RIGHTS
LAW, AND POLICY: CASES AND MATERIALS (Louis Higgin ed., 2005).
3 ADA § 12112(b)(5)(A).
search,4 the present analyses are based on data from interviews
with employers who contacted the Job Accommodation Network
(JAN) concerning workplace accommodations for current
In the following sections, we first describe workplace accommodation requirements and analysis, before and after ADA
passage in 1990. Next, we examine the extent to which
employers' accommodation decisions are linked closely to the
ADA's definition of disability for a qualified employee or other
factors. Lastly, we discuss the implications of the present
findings for our ongoing line of study.
II. WORKPLACE ACCOMMODATIONS PRIOR TO AND AFTER ADA
The employment provisions of the ADA largely are derived
from prior vocational rehabilitation laws.5 Vocational rehabilitation laws, originally enacted to provide rehabilitation and
employment services for servicemen returning from WWI,6 were
broadened to include citizens with disabilities in 1920.7
Nondiscrimination provisions in employment were introduced
by Title V of the subsequent Rehabilitation Act of 1973.8 Section
504 defined disability discrimination, providing that “[n]o
otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . shall, solely
by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the
financial assistance. . . .”9
See Helen A. Schartz et al., Workplace Accommodations: Evidence Based
Outcomes, Work (forthcoming); see also D.J. Hendricks et al., Cost and Effectiveness of
Accommodations in the Workplace: Preliminary Results of a Nationwide Study, 25
DISABILITY STUD. Q., (Number 4) (Fall 2005), available at http://www. dsq-sds.org (last
visited Apr. 3, 2006).
5 See generally BLANCK, supra note 2, at 22 (discussing the origins and history of
the ADA's workplace accommodation provisions).
6 See Smith-Sears (Vocational Rehabilitation) Act of 1918, 65 Pub. L. No. 178, ch.
Although Section 504 established a seemingly broad definition of disability discrimination, legal recourse for individuals
with disabilities was limited in practice. To qualify for the
antidiscrimination protection, the individual's disability must
have been related to employment.10 Furthermore, the Act
applied only to federal executive branch agencies (Section
501),11 federal government contractors and subcontractors
107, 40 Stat. 617 (providing for the “vocational rehabilitation and return to civil employment of disabled persons discharged from the military or naval forces”); see also Peter
Blanck, Civil War Pensions and Disability, 62 OHIO ST. L.J. 109 (2001) (discussing history of veterans pension and vocational rehabilitation laws).
7 Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (2000) (originally enacted as
Fess-Kenyon (Vocational Rehabilitation) Act of 1920, Pub. L. No. 66-236, 41 Stat. 735
(codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. § 31-45 (1928) (repealed 1973)) (providing “for the
promotion of persons disabled in industry or in any legitimate occupation and their
return to civil employment . . . ” including people “who, by reason of a physical defect or
infirmity, whether congenital or acquired by accident, injury, or disease [are], or may be
expected to be, totally or partially incapacitated for remunerative occupation.”).
8 Revisions established the Rehabilitation Services Administration and programs
for rehabilitation training, research, and evaluation activities. See Rehabilitation Act of
1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112, §§ 100-130, 87 Stat. 355, 363-74 (Title I, “Vocational Rehabilitation Services”); Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112, §§ 200-204, 87
Stat. 355, 374-77 (Title II, “Research and Training”); Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L.
No. 93-112, §§ 300-306, 87 Stat. 355, 377-85 (Title III, “Special Federal Responsibilities”);
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112, §§ 400-407, 87 Stat. 355, 385-90 (Title IV,
“Administration and Program and Project Evaluation”); see also 29 U.S.C. § 791(b)
(2000) (requiring departments and agencies of the executive branch to submit
affirmative action plans “for the hiring, placement, and advancement of individuals with
disabilities. . . . Such plans shall include a description of the extent to which and
methods whereby the special needs of employees who are individuals with disabilities
are being met.”), and 29 U.S.C. § 793 (2000) (requiring similar plans for government
9 Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), 29 U.S.C. § 794 (2000).
See Rehabilitation Act of 1973, § 7(6), Pub. L. 93-112, 87 Stat. 355
(codified as amended 29 U.S.C. § 705(20)(A) (2000)) (defining “handicapped individual”
as having a disability which constitutes or results in “substantial handicap to employment” and “can reasonably be expected to benefit in terms of employability from
vocational rehabilitation services”).
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 501), 29 U.S.C. § 791 (2000).
(Section 503),12 and activities that received Federal financial
assistance and those conducted by an Executive branch or the
The Section 504 requirement that the disability to be
related to employment would be removed by subsequent
amendments and implementing regulations.13 However, the
ADA's subsequent three major categories of disability (i.e.,
actual disability, regarded as having a disability, and record of
a disability)14 may be traced to the 1974 amendments of Section
504.15 Subsequent interpreting regulations for Section 504, developed by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
included the concepts of “reasonable accommodation,”
“qualified . . . employee” and “undue hardship.”16
The ADA extended the Rehabilitation Act requirement to
provide reasonable workplace accommodations to private employers. Small employers, those with less than fifteen employees, however, are excluded from coverage.17 To be a covered
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 503), 29 U.S.C. § 793 (2000).
See Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1974, § 111(a), Pub. L. No. 93651, 89 Stat. 2-3 (codified as 29 U.S.C. § 705(20)(B)(i)-(iii) (2005)), and 34 C.F.R.
§ 104.3(j) (2000).
ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2) (2000) (defining “disability”).
See Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1974, § 111(a), Pub. L. No. 93651, 89 Stat. 2 (codified as amended in 20 U.S.C. § 705(20)(B)(i)-(iii) (2000)) (defining a
handicapped individual as one “who (A) has a physical or mental impairment which
substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities, (B) has a record of
such an impairment, or (C) is regarded as having such an impairment.”); see also
BLANCK, supra note 2, at 28 (arguing that “Congress may not have expected Section 504
to have a major impact”).
See 34 C.F.R § 104.12(a) (2005) (requiring that recipients of federal
funds “make reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of
an otherwise qualified handicapped applicant or employee unless the recipient can
of its program or activity.”); see also 34 C.F.R. § 104.3(1)(1) (2005) (defining “qualified
handicapped person” as “a handicapped person who, with reasonable accommodation,
can perform the essential functions of the job in question”).
See ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5) (2000) (defining “employer” as “a person
engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has 15 or more employees for each
individual, an employee or job applicant must be a “qualified
individual with a disability.”18 To be qualified requires the employee have a defined ADA disability and be able to perform the
essential job functions with or without the provision of reasonable accommodations.
Pertinent to accommodating employees, disability is defined primarily as having “a physical or mental impairment
of such individual.”19 Whether an individual has an ADA
defined disability is dependent on the individual's limitations in
“major life activities.” “Major life activities” include “functions
such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking,
seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.”20
Although working is listed as a major life activity in the legislation, simply having a work limitation in one job may not
constitute a disability for purposes of the ADA.21 To date, the
federal courts are split as to whether individuals “regarded as”
having a disability or those “with a record of” a disability are
working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar
year, and any agent of such person” and exempting from the classification of employer
“the United States, a corporation wholly owned by the government of the United States,
or an Indian tribe; or . . . a bona fide private membership club (other than a labor organization) that is exempt from taxation under section 501(c) of title 26.”); see also
Clackamas Gastroenterology Assocs. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440, 448-51 (2003) (applying the
EEOC's definition of employee to physician-shareholders to determine if a clinic qualified as an employer under the ADA); BLANCK, supra note 2 at 159 (discussing Title I
covered employers).
See ADA § 12111(8) (defining “qualified individual with a disability”).
ADA § 12102(2)(A). The ADA definition of disability also includes those
with a record of an impairment or those who are regarded as having an impairment.
ADA § 12102(2)(B)-(C). However, these situations are unlikely to require workplace
accommodations to complete the essential functions of a job.
28 C.F.R. § 35.104 (2005). Additionally, the Supreme Court has held
that reproduction and childbearing are major life activities under the ADA. Bragdon v.
Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998).
See Toyota Motor Mfg. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 198 (2002) (questioning whether work should be considered to be a major life activity).
ensured workplace accommodations under the ADA.22
As mentioned, if an individual is a qualified individual with
a disability for purposes of the ADA, the employer is required to
provide accommodations, unless doing so would impose an
undue hardship for the business.23 Figure 1 summarizes this
decision process.24
Compare Weber v. Strippet, Inc., 186 F.3d 907, 916 (8th Cir. 1999)
(reasoning that requiring employers to accommodate employees who are only regarded
as having a disability “would lead to bizarre results”), and Mack v. Great Dane Trailers,
308 F.3d 776, 783 n.2 (7th Cir. 2002) (noting the split in circuits and deciding not to
address the issue), and Workman v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 165 F.3d 460, 467 (6th Cir. 1999),
and Newberry v. E. Tex. State Univ., 161 F.3d 276, 280 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding that
employers do not have to accommodate employees who they only think have an impairment), and Barnes v. Nw. Iowa Health Ctr., 238 F. Supp. 2d 1053, 1090 (N.D. Iowa
2002) (holding that an employer is not required to provide accommodations for employee
who has a record of a disability and is not “actually disabled” under the ADA), with Katz
v. City Metal Co., 87 F.3d 26, 33-34 (1st Cir. 1996) (reasoning that the statutory
language defining a qualified individual under the ADA does not distinguish between
individuals who are regarded as having a disability and those who have an actual
disability), and Hartog v. Wasatch Acad., 129 F.3d 1076, 1084 (10th Cir. 1997) (stating
that reasonable accommodations need not be provided for non-disabled individuals who
have a relationship or association with a disabled person).
ADA §§ 12112(b(5)(A).
The ADA requires that reasonable accommodations be provided to job
applicants as well as current employees. This discussion is limited to current employees.
Whether an accommodation defined under the ADA is
“reasonable” is determined on a case-by-case basis and by
example.25 Relevant to accommodating current employees,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations provide examples of reasonable accommodations, including:
employees without disabilities.26
However, just as the outcome of any legal case is determined by
the facts, the reasonableness of the accommodation is
determined by the particular circumstances of the employee and
employer. For example, working from home has been considered
a reasonable accommodation for a computer programmer who
could maintain his productivity, but not reasonable for other
employees who require more direct co-employee collaboration
and supervision.27 Inherent in this example is the principle that
a reasonable accommodation may alter, within bounds, the way
in which a job is performed without altering or reducing the
expected and essential work outcomes.
Alternatively, one employee may be allowed to start work early
and end work earlier in the day for medical or therapy
appointments (i.e., flex-time scheduling). That employee would
See ADA § 12111(9) (defining reasonable accommodations).
29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii)(iii) (2004).
Compare Vande Zande v. Wis. Dep't of Admin., 44 F.3d 538, 544-45
(7th Cir. 1995) (holding unreasonable an accommodation request to work full-time at
home), with Langdon v. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., 959 F.2d 1053, 1060-61 (D.C.
Cir. 1992) (holding that an accommodation request to work full-time from home was
reasonable for a computer programmer).
work the same number of hours and, therefore, maintain production, but would work at a different time than other employees, assuming the schedule change would not impact essential
job functions such as interacting with customers. Likewise,
rather than using a standard telephone, one employee with a
hearing impairment may be provided TTY/TDD access and use a
relay service to communicate with customers, business associates, or other employees.
The ADA does not require a workplace accommodation to be
financially justified, nor does it allow for a cost-benefit analysis
to justify the individual employee's value to the organization.
The ADA permits denial of an accommodation when it creates an
undue hardship, that is, it is not reasonable under the
circumstances.28 Undue hardships are those actions which
require “significant difficulty or expense.”29
The ADA outlines factors to be considered in determining
whether providing an accommodation would be an undue hardship. Such factors include as the nature and cost of the accommodation, the financial resources of the facility making the
accommodation and number of persons employed on expenses
and resources of the facility, the type of operation of the employer, and the impact of the accommodation on the business.30
Thus, in determining reasonableness, although net cost of the accommodation may be one factor, it is balanced by size of the
employer and the resources available to it.31 An accommodation
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, ENFORCEMENT GUIDREASONABLE ACCOMMODATION AND UNDUE HARDSHIP UNDER THE AMERICANS
WITH DISABILITIES ACT (2000), available at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/accommodation.html (last visited Mar. 23, 2006) [hereinafter EEOC]; see also Morton v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 272 F.3d 1249, 1257 (9th Cir. 2001) (restricting reasonable accommodations to those which do not impose an undue hardship).
ADA § 12111(10)(A).
EEOC, supra note 28; see also ADA § 12111(10)(B); 29 C.F.R.
§ 163(p)(2), pt. 1630 app. § 1630.2¶ (2004).
See Lovejoy-Wilson v. NOCO Motor Fuel, Inc., 263 F.3d 208, 221 (2d
Cir. 2001) (comparing the difficulty of the accommodation to the size of the employer and
the and resources available to it); see also EEOC, supra note 28 (arguing that net cost of
that might be prohibitively expensive for a small business may
not be so for a large corporation.
Some critics32 have argued that the ADA's accommodation
provision creates an employment privilege or subsidy for individuals with disabilities. Although the factors for determining
whether an accommodation is an undue burden do not include
benefits to the company, such critics presume, all else being
equal, the net costs of accommodations typically exceed the
benefits to employers and individuals with disabilities.33
Yet, prior studies show the costs associated with employee
turnover and workplace injury tend to outweigh the direct costs
associated with accommodation.34 When an accommodation has
no net cost to the employer, an employer should be willing to
provide the accommodation regardless of legal requirements
because the net benefit to the employer is a more productive and
loyal employee.35 Our prior research36 and that of others shows
workplace accommodations are typically low cost, effective, and
net beneficial for employers.
the accommodation to the employer should take into consideration funding from outside
sources, such as state rehabilitation agencies, tax credits or deductions and, when
appropriate, resources from the disabled individual).
See CAROLYN L. WEAVER, Incentives Versus Controls in Federal Disability Policy, in DISABILITY AND WORK: INCENTIVES, RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES 3-17
(Carolyn L. Weaver ed., 1997).
See generally Peter David Blanck, The Economics of the Employment
Provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act: Workplace Accommodations, in EMPLOYMENT, DISABILITY, AND THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: ISSUES IN LAW,
PUBLIC POLICY, AND RESEARCH 201 (Peter David Blanck ed., 2000) (discussing economic
models of the ADA).
Peter David Blanck, The Economics of the Employment Provisions of
the Americans with Disabilities Act: Workplace Accommodations, 46 DEPAUL L. REV. 877
See Ellen S. Fabian, et al., Reasonable Accommodations for Workers
with Serious Mental Illness: Type, Frequency, and Associated Outcomes, PSYCHOSOCIAL
REHABILITATION J., Oct. 1993, at 163 (reporting that providing accommodations was
significantly and positively correlated with employee tenure).
Schartz, supra note 4; see also Hendricks, supra note 4.
Building on our previous studies,37 we explore here new
empirical evidence on the accommodation decision making
process. Described in detail elsewhere,38 the present analysis is
based on the nationwide sample of employers who contacted the
Job Accommodation Network (JAN) about workplace accommodations. Because the majority of employers in the sample
requested information concerning a current employee, we have
restricted the present analysis to those cases.
See Schartz, supra note 4; see also Hendricks, supra note 4.
See Hendricks et al., supra note 4 (describing sample characteristics
and methodology in more detail).
III. EVIDENCE OF ACCOMMODATION DETERMINATIONS—THE
JAN INTERVIEW STUDY
In partnership with JAN and the Burton Blatt Institute, the
Law, Health Policy, and Disability Center has been conducting
follow-up telephone interviews of JAN customers to assess their
business needs and the practical usefulness of the
accommodation solutions discussed.39 JAN is a free consulting
service, funded by the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of
Disability Employment Policy (ODEP). It provides individual
consultations about workplace accommodation solutions, selfemployment options, and technical assistance about disabilityrelated legislation.40 JAN serves large and small employers;
individuals with disabilities; rehabilitation, medical, and legal
professionals; and families and friends of individuals with disabilities.
See Hendricks, supra note 4; see also Schartz, supra note 4.
Job Accommodation Network, available at http://www.jan.wvu.edu/
(last visited on Oct. 5, 2005).
The interviews conducted for this study include a series of
forced-choice and open-ended questions. Separate interview
scripts are prepared for each group (e.g., employers; individuals
with disabilities; rehabilitation, medical, and legal professionals;
families and friends of individuals with disabilities; and others).
Participants answer demographic and disability-related
questions about the person who is the subject of the consultation,
along with questions about the accommodations considered and
about the company. For accommodations implemented, employers are asked about the direct and indirect costs and benefits
and the effectiveness of the accommodations. Questions about
satisfaction with and effectiveness of the JAN services are
included in the interview scripts. Interviews take place between
forty-five and sixty days after the JAN consultation in order to
give employers time to consider and possibly implement
The data reported here are derived from a subset of follow-up
interviews that took place between January 2004 and June 2005
with employers who consulted JAN about accommodating a
current employee. The majority of JAN consultations about
accommodation solutions come from employers.41 Of the 1241
employer contacts provided by JAN, 890 completed the interview, resulting in a 71.7% completion rate.42 Of the 890 interviews, the majority (75.2%) were employers requesting information about accommodating a job applicant or current employee.
Other calls were for information about the ADA, other laws, or
company policies.43
Hendricks, supra note 4.
Participants for the follow-up interviews were initially recruited by
JAN consultants. At the end of the individualized consultation, the JAN consultants
offer the caller an opportunity to participate in a follow-up interview. Participation in
the interview is voluntary. These callers are contacted by LHPDC approximately fortyfive to sixty days after the consultation, allowing time for employers to decide on and
possibly implement accommodation solutions.
Of the 890 employer interviews, 665 (74.7%) requested information on
the ADA or other disability legislation or company policies. Most calls (52.6%) concerned
multiple requests, including both information on accommodating an applicant or
Of the consultations concerning workplace accommodations, the
vast majority concerned accommodating a current employee.
More than three-fourths (82.4%) of these consultations focused
on retaining an employee and an additional 1.8% concerned
promoting a current employee. Accommodation inquiries for job
applicants made up a small percentage of the sample (4.6%), as
did inquiries about hiring new employees (1.6%). Some inquiries
did not concern a particular employee, but rather, involved a
company-wide issue (4.5%). The analyses below are restricted to
employer consultations concerning accommodations for retaining
or promoting a current employee.
B. The Employees
Employers reported demographic information on the employees
who were the subject of the consultation. The “typical” employee
was female, a high school graduate, and in her mid-forties to
mid-fifties. On average, the employee worked for the company
about seven years and earned $36,000 per year. We found that
these employers likely viewed the employee at issue as having
substantial limitations of non-work and work activities.
Specifically, employers requested JAN's assistance with
accommodations for substantially more female (60.9%) than
male (39.1%) employees.44 Employees were likely to be in their
mid-forties to mid-fifties (24.7%), mid-thirties to mid-forties
(22.6%), or mid-twenties to mid-thirties (15.8%). The oldest
employees in the sample (more than fifty-five years of age,
10.0%) and youngest (less than twenty-six, 5.2%) were less likely
to be the subject of the consultation. Employees discussed were
likely to have a high school diploma or GED (38.6%) or a college
degree (28.5%). Few had an Associate's Degree (12.2%), a
graduate or professional degree (12.2%), only a high school
certificate (5.9%), or did not complete high school (2.7%).
employee and legislation or policy information.
In subsequent analyses, we will examine job type and income levels
(among other factors) as functions of gender to assess this accommodation rate difference.
On average, employees that were discussed had worked with
the company for more than seven years (i.e., mean 7.7 years,
median 5.0 years, range of less than one year to thirty-eight
years). Annual wages ranged from $1,560 to $135,000 with a
mean of $36,128.45 As predicted, higher annual wages were
significantly correlated with employee's age, gender (with male
employees), level of education, and company tenure. Table 1
displays the intercorrelations among the employee demographic
variables.46
Sample size (N) = 332.
Employee demographic variables were compared using Pearson
Correlations. A Pearson Correlation (r) is a statistical measure of the linear relationship
between two variables. It can range from +1, perfect positive linear relationship, to -1,
perfect negative linear relationship.
Employers were asked whether the employee at issue had a
physical, mental, or other health condition that substantially
limited a major life activity (i.e., mirroring the ADA's definition
of disability). Separate questions were asked for substantial
limitations in major life activities other than working, such as
breathing, thinking, walking, talking, seeing, hearing, and so on,
(i.e., a non-work related, but ADA covered disability), and the
kind and amount of work limitation. Of the 521 employers who
reported on an employee's limitation, the majority (79.7%) of
employees had substantial limitations in a major life activity
(either work related, non-work related, or both). For purposes of
these analyses, employees with substantial limitations, either in
work or non-work major life activities, were considered to meet
the ADA disability definition. Thus, employees were classified
based on whether the employer regarded them as having a
substantial limitation of a major life activity and thus, a person
with a disability for purposes of the ADA.
As expected, disability status was associated with age.47
Employees with disabilities therefore were more likely to be
older, in their mid-forties to mid-fifties, compared to those
without substantial limitations. Figure 2 provides the distribution of employees by age and disability status. Importantly, disability status was not significantly related to other employee
demographic variables such as race or gender.
Pearson correlation (r) = .097, p < .05, N = 416.
A range of employers participated in the interviews. Company
size ranged from small (e.g., five employees) to those with almost
one million employees. The mean company size was large, with
13,652 employees. The median company size was 1300
employees. Pertinent to whether they are subject to ADA
requirements, the majority (98.3%) had fifteen or more employees; a few (1.7%) had less than fifteen employees. One-third
(30.9%) had consulted with JAN before.
Company size, as a function of number of employees, was
significantly related to employee gender ratios and wages (i.e.,
larger companies had a higher percentage of male employees and
paid higher wages, relative to smaller companies). Table 2
summarizes these correlations between company size and employee demographic variables.48
Sub-analyses found that the size of company positively correlated with
wages for female employees (r = .188, p < .05, N = 175) but not for male employees (r =
.095, n.s., N = 133.) In other words, female employees working in larger companies have
relatively higher wages than females working in smaller companies.
D. Accommodation Decisions
For more than half of the consultations, workplace accommodations were made subsequent to the consultation with JAN. Of
the 540 employers who provided feedback, accommodations had
been made (or were pending implementation) after more than
half (55.2%) of the consultations. Accommodations had not been
made in 44.8% of the cases.
The prevalent reason reported for not making an accommodation was when the company determined it was not required
under the ADA or another law (58.5%). In other cases, the
decision to accommodate was pending (19.9%) at the time that
the employer was interviewed. In fewer cases, the accommodation had been rejected (15.4%) or the employee decided it was not
necessary (2.5%). In less than one percent of cases (0.4%), an
accommodation was reported as not possible.
The reported reason for not making the accommodation differed
depending on disability status (i.e., having a substantial limitation on a major life activity or not).49 Table 3 summarizes
employers' given reasons for not providing the accommodation by
disability status. The follow-up statistical analysis revealed that
accommodation-decision differences by disability status were
functions of employees without substantial limitations; being
more likely to have decided that the accommodation was not
necessary, as compared to employees with substantial
limitations.50 One possible explanation for this difference is that
employees without substantial limitations may have been more
likely to have short-term impairments (e.g., recovering from
surgery or complications in pregnancy) that would not have been
seen to be covered under the ADA.
Chi-square test for independence (χ2) is a nonparametric statistical test
used to determine if there is a relationship between two variables using frequency data.
Comparison of reasons accommodation was not made by employee status, χ2 (5, N=213)
= 14.194, p < .05.
“Determined not needed by employee” compared to aggregate of all
other reasons, χ2 (1, N = 213) = 10.082, p < .01.
E. Factors Associated with Accommodation Decision
Under the ADA, the decision to accommodate is made for an
employee with a covered disability. A substantial limitation of a
major life activity is one requirement of the ADA's definition of
disability. Therefore, an employer's report or perception of
whether the employee at issue has a substantial limitation
should predict, in part, whether an accommodation actually was
made. Employers are not required to provide accommodations
for individuals who are not defined as having a disability (i.e., a
substantial limitation of a major life activity).
As expected, accommodations were most likely to be made for
employees who were considered to have a substantial limitation
of a major life activity.51 Accommodations were made in more
than half (61.2%) of the 402 consultations for employees with
substantial limitations. Though significantly fewer cases,
accommodations were also made in a considerable number of
cases (42.6% of 101) for employees whom the employer reported
did not have a substantial limitation of a major life activity.
Under the ADA, employers are required to provide reasonable
accommodations only for qualified employees with covered
disabilities (i.e., employees who can perform the essential functions of the job with or without accommodations).52 For employees with work-related substantial limitations, employers were
asked to rate the employee's functional limitations both with and
without accommodations. We hypothesized that employers' decisions to accommodate would be related to employees' functioning
with, rather than without, accommodations. As mentioned,
under the ADA, an employer is required to provide a reasonable
accommodation to an employee who can do essential job
functions given the accommodation.53 An employer would not be
required to provide a reasonable accommodation if the employee
could not perform the essential functions even with the
accommodation. Assuming employers were adhering to the ADA
analysis, the decision to accommodate should not be based on the
employee's ability to work without accommodations; rather it
should be based on the employee's essential job abilities with
As predicted, whether an accommodation was made significantly correlated with employers' ratings of the employee's
functional ability to work with accommodations. Using a 5-point
χ2 (1, N = 503) = 11.449, p < .01.
ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) (2000).
scale with 1 as “not limited” and 5 as “substantially limited,”
employers rated the particular employee's functional ability to
work with and without accommodations. We found that
employers rated employees as significantly less limited in their
ability to work with accommodations than without.54 The rating
of an employee's functional ability to work given accommodations therefore is related significantly to whether an accommodation was made.55 In other words, employers were more
likely to provide accommodations for individuals whose work
limitations would be mitigated by the accommodations. Conversely, they were less likely to provide accommodations if they
reported the employee to be substantially limited even with the
accommodations. Consistent with the ADA definition, provision
of accommodation was not associated with the employee's workrelated functional limitations without accommodations.56
To determine whether other factors, potentially not relevant to
ADA, related to the provision of accommodations subsequent to
the JAN consultation, the variable “Accommodation Decision”
(i.e., yes or no) was correlated with demographic and company
variables. As expected, employee demographic variables and
company variables were not significantly related to whether an
accommodation was made. Moreover, accommodation decisions
were not related to employee age, gender, education, annual
salary or wages, or years with the company. The accommodation
provision was not significantly correlated with the size of the
company or whether the employer had previously contacted
JAN. Table 4 summarizes these findings.
Mean rating of functional limitation without accommodations was 3.69,
and mean rating with accommodations was 2.19, Paired Samples t-test (252) = 19.124, p
< .001. A t-test is a statistical test used to determine if there is a significant difference
between the means of two variables. The Paired Samples version is used when the
samples are related. In this case, the samples are related because it is a repeated
Pearson correlation (r) = .224, N = 251, p<
_ .001.
Pearson correlation (r) = .051, N = 283, n.s.
F. Accommodation Direct Costs and Benefits
To further assess the reasons why employers provide workplace
accommodations to employees without “substantial limitations,”
we analyzed employer reports of direct costs and benefits
associated with providing the accommodations. Cost and benefit
data were available only in those situations in which the
employer had decided to provide the accommodation. Of the
respondents who made an accommodation, 226 were able to
provide the actual or estimated direct cost of the accommodation.
Costs were classified by type of cost: no cost, one-time, annual,
or both one-time and annual costs. To include both one-time and
annual cost estimates, a “First Calendar Year Direct
Accommodation Cost” was calculated using the one-time cost
reports and one year's worth of the annual cost reports. We
found that approximately half (49.1%) of the accommodations
made had no cost. Almost three-quarters (74.8%) had a First
Calendar Year Cost of $500 or less. Of the 115 that had a cost,
the median First Calendar Year Cost was $500.
The “First Calendar Year Direct Accommodation Cost” was
associated with disability status. Accommodations for employees
with disabilities (i.e., substantial limitations of a major life
activity) were significantly more expensive than those for employees without disabilities.57 The proportion of accommodations
without a cost did not differ by disability status.58 However, for
accommodations that had a cost, the median accommodation cost
for employees with substantial limitations was $629, which was
significantly greater than the median of $100 for employees
without substantial limitations. Table 5 summarizes these
First Calendar Year Direct Accommodation Cost data were positively
skewed because of the high frequency of zero responses. Therefore, data were transformed using ln (x + 1) to reduce the skewness of the data. Groups were compared using
an independent samples t-test, t (57.75) = 2.336, p < .05. The independent samples
version is used when the two samples are not related.
χ2 (1, N = 222) = 1.326, n.s.
INSERT TABLE 5 HERE59
The cost estimates presented in Table 5 are only for accommodations
made and not for those rejected.
The results suggest that for employees without substantial
limitations, presumably individuals for whom employers may
not have an ADA obligation to provide accommodations, employers may be willing to provide accommodations when the
costs are low. For employees without ADA defined disabilities,
more expensive accommodations may be rejected by the employer at higher rates.
Almost all employers reported that providing the accommodation benefited the company by allowing it to retain (91.6%)
and/or promote (11.3%) a qualified employee. Other direct benefits reported included eliminating the cost of training a new
employee (59.5%), saving on worker's compensation or insurance
costs (43.0%), increasing the accommodated worker's productivity (76.7%), improving the accommodated worker's attendance (53.3%), increasing the diversity of the company (41.4%),
and “other” direct benefits (20.1%).
Of the eighty-three employers who provided monetary
estimates, more than half (57.8%) reported their company benefited more than $1,000 from providing the accommodation. The
median or typical direct benefit to the company was $1,800.
Direct benefit estimates ranged from $0 to $100,000.
Of the seventy-five employers who provided benefit and cost
estimates, net benefit was calculated from estimated direct
benefits minus calendar year direct cost estimates. For the
majority (81.3%) of these employers, the estimated benefits of
providing the accommodation offset the costs of the accommodation. For over half (61.3%), net benefits were positive, meaning
that the benefits gained from providing the accommodation
outweighed the cost of the accommodation. For one-fifth (20.0%),
benefits were equal to the cost of the accommodation. For the remaining 18.7%, accommodation costs exceeded benefits to the
Although estimated direct benefit did not differ by type of
limitation,60 there was a trend for net benefits to be greater for
Direct benefit data were positively skewed. Therefore, data were transformed using ln (x + 1) to reduce the skewness of the data. Groups were compared using
accommodations for employees with substantial limitations than
for those without substantial limitations.61 Further analyses revealed that benefit differences occurred for accommodations with
zero cost and not for those with greater than zero cost. For
accommodations with no cost, direct benefit estimates were
significantly greater for employees with substantial limitations
compared to those without. For the subset of accommodations
which had no cost, the median benefit for accommodating
employees with a disability was $3500 compared to a median of
$0 for accommodating employees without a disability. Because
there was no cost to the accommodation, the employer received
the total benefit. For accommodations with a cost, neither direct
benefits nor net benefits differed for employees with, compared
to those without, substantial limitations.62
Direct benefits estimates were not significantly related to
employee demographics, company size or calendar year direct
costs. Not surprisingly, net benefits were significantly associated
with wages.63 In other words, the company reported greater net
benefits associated with accommodating those employees with
higher wages. Employees with higher wages likely are more
expensive to replace (e.g., recruitment, training, and start-up
costs may be greater), and in providing accommodations, the
employer avoids those costs and realizes a net benefit.
The present study's core findings may be summarized as
1. Consistent with the ADA's requirements, current employees
an independent samples t-test, t (77) = 1.258, n.s.
χ2 median test (1, N = 73) = 3.425, p = .064. This statistical test uses a
chi-square to compare frequency of scores greater than median to those less than
median for two groups.
Independent samples t-test on transformed direct benefit data, equal
variances assumed, t (34) = -.711, n.s.
Pearson correlation (r = .402, p < .005, N = 59). Independent samples ttest on net benefits, equal variances assumed, t (34) = .330, n.s.
with substantial limitations of major life activities are substantially more likely to receive accommodations, compared to those
without substantial limitations.
2. Employers are more likely to provide accommodations for
employees whose work-related limitations are mitigated by
effective accommodations.
3. Factors not relevant to the ADA accommodation decision
process (e.g., age, gender, job tenure, and wage level) did not
predict the provision of accommodations.
4. Employers provided accommodations to a substantial number of employees who did not meet the ADA's definition of
5. Accommodations for employees without substantial limitations cost less than those provided to employees with substantial
6. Overall, accommodation costs are low and benefits relatively high.
The present results, perhaps the first of their kind, provide
strong construct validity (i.e., observations that fit the theory) for
the rationale underlying the ADA's accommodation process.64 If
replicated, the findings suggest employer accommodation
decisions largely are based on factors consistent with the ADA
model—a focus on employees with substantial limitations of a
major life activity, and on the ability to perform essential job
functions with the provision of accommodations. Demographic
factors that are not directly relevant to the accommodation process (e.g., gender or age) did not predict the provision of
Employers provided accommodations to a considerable number
of employees who did not meet the substantial limitation
requirement under the ADA. In this study, almost half (43%) of
accommodated employees did not have substantial limitations of
a major life activity. Certainly, a number of these employees may
See KENNETH S. BORDENS & BRUCE B. ABBOTT, RESEARCH DESIGN AND
METHODS: A PROCESS APPROACH (2d ed., 1991) (defining construct validity as a means to
assess how well the data fit a hypothetical construct).
have been covered by the ADA because they were regarded as
having a record of a disability. In other cases, employers may
have been required to provide accommodations under a state law
that exceeded the ADA's requirements.65 Although those factors
may account for a subset of these cases, it is likely that
employers perceive the net benefit from accommodation,
especially if the cost of the accommodation is relatively low and
the cost of turnover is high. Although the accommodation process
does not turn on a cost-benefit analysis, employers clearly seem
to be considering costs and benefits when providing
accommodations to an individual without a covered disability.
For employees without substantial limitations, the findings are
more in line with employers performing a cost-benefit analysis.
Accommodations provided to employees without substantial
limitations were found to cost relatively less than those provided
to employees with substantial limitations. Of course, employers
are not required under law to provide accommodations to all
employees; in the context of the ADA, employers are required to
provide accommodations only to those qualified employees with
defined disabilities. Employers are free to reject or dismiss
requests from non-disabled employees, and they are likely do so
at a great rate, especially for costlier accommodations. It may
also be that employees without substantial limitations tend not
to request accommodations (or at least not costlier ones), believing they do not have a legal basis for the request.
Further research is needed to examine the reasons employers
choose to accommodate disabled and non-disabled employees,
and what factors govern those decisions. In addition, more
research is needed to assess who asks for accommodations and
why. Outcomes to assess include the provision accommodations
and net cost or benefit to the employer.
Lastly, our findings continue to support the general conclusion
See, e.g., California Fair Employment and Housing Act, CAL. GOV'T
CODE §§ 12900-12996 (West 2005) (prohibiting discrimination based on disability by
public and private employers and requiring reasonable accommodations); see also CAL.
GOV'T CODE § 12926(k)(1)(B)(i) (West 2005) (defining physical disability as a condition
that “limits” rather than substantially limits a major life activity).
that most accommodation costs are low and the resultant
benefits relatively high. Almost half of the accommodations
studied here were made at no cost for current employees with
ADA defined disabilities and more than half for current employees without reported substantial limitations. Employers
themselves report substantial benefits from the provision of
The present line of study lends itself to use in employer ADA
awareness programs to convey the low costs and high benefits of
accommodating qualified individuals with disabilities. Despite
such findings that accommodations are inexpensive and
effective, many qualified individuals with disabilities remain
unemployed because of an unwillingness on the part of
employers to accommodate. Those employers in this study who
contacted JAN may not be representative of many others who
chose not to engage in the accommodation process.
As employers continue to provide effective accommodations at
low cost with a significant positive return on the investment,
there may be a growing willingness to make accommodations.
Future studies will continue to refine and document the “business case” for accommodations. As employers and persons with
disabilities recognize the potential value of workplace accommodations, employment rates may improve for all qualified
Behavioral Issues in the Classroom:
Accommodation Request Form - BYU Independent Study
Accommodations Request Form - Polk County School District
Transition Focus Group Questions
Weekly Curriculum Accommodations Worksheet
Attachment B - University of Massachusetts Amherst
McDowell County Schools Section 504 Student Accommodation Plan