The purpose of this quantitative, non-experimental, retrospective research study was to examine the charges of disability-related, private-sector workplace discrimination made by individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs) to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). To date, there has been a lack of research regarding the nature, scope and dynamics of employment discrimination affecting individuals with ASDs.A portion of the EEOC's Integrated Mission Systems (IMS) database was analyzed, drawing upon the following five major categories: (1) charging-party demographics, (2) responding-party characteristics, (3), U.S. region, (4) ADA Title I discrimination charge categories, and (e) case resolutions. All charges that were received, investigated, and fully resolved by the EEOC from July 26, 1992 (the first date the ADA went in effect through September 30, 2003 (last day of fiscal year 2003), were available for analyses.First, an exploratory descriptive design was employed, in order to capture the characteristics (or profile) of the ADA Title I charges of discrimination made to the EEOC by individuals with ASDs.The second phase of the study, comparative in nature, contrasted the ASD profile against three groups of individuals with other types of disabilities: (1) other physical, sensory, and neurological disabilities, (2) emotional or psychological disabilities, and (3) mental retardation. Overall, the use of Fisher's exact tests and t-Tests for independent groups revealed that the profile of ASD charges has relatively more in common with the charge profile for mental retardation than the other two comparative groups.The third phase of this study, predictive in nature, explored whether or not the final EEOC case resolutions of ASD charges (considered simply as merit vs. non-merit resolutions) could be predicted as a function of some of the contextual variables available within the database. Logistic regression analysis revealed that ASD case resolutions can be partially predicated as a function of: (1) the employer's industry (i.e., Service industries vs. all other industries), and (2) the size of the employer.

Legislation, court decisions, and the changing political and social climate provide evidence of the importance of the outcomes of EEO litigation involving challenged selection procedures for transfer, training and development, and promotion. These selection procedures are being challenged by more informed employees and, in many cases, result in costly litigation. Thus, organizations must be aware of the continuing developments in employment law especially as found in court decisions and related legislation. This study investigates judicial and EEOC decisions in discrimination cases to provide answers to these questions: Are organizations aware of the outcomes of EEO litigation involving challenged selection procedures for transfer, training and development, and promotion? Are organizations aware of what constitutes a discriminatory practice in the selection of employees for transfer, training and development, and promotion? Does management recognize and follow nondiscriminatory procedures in selecting personnel for transfer, training and development, and promotion? The purposes of the study are 1. To analyze outcomes of EEO litigation involving challenged selection procedures for transfer, training and development, and promotion; 2. To develop a model set of guidelines to aid organizations in developing nondiscriminatory procedures for use in selecting employees for transfer, training and development, and promotion. This study concludes that many employers are aware of the outcomes of EEO litigation involving challenged selection procedures for transfer, training and development, and promotion. Many employers are also aware of what constitutes a discriminatory practice in the selection of employees for some employment advantage. However, management does not always recognize and follow nondiscriminatory procedures when selecting employees for transfer, training and development, and promotion. The number of cases in which selection procedures were found discriminatory supports this conclusion.

No description available.

Workplace discrimination for individuals with visual impairments in the U.S. is an ongoing issue dating before the founding of the EEOC and the enactment of the ADA. Despite laws enacted to protect against unequal treatment in the workplace, the EEOC continues to receive submissions of formal discrimination charges from individuals with visual impairments. The workplace is experiencing changes with increasing amounts of older adults, women, minorities, and the use of technology and the Internet. By examining characteristics of the discrimination charges and the resulting outcomes, the knowledge gained can describe the current situation and the historical progression of workplace discrimination for individuals with visual impairments. The purpose of this cross-sectional study is to understand through descriptive, non-parametric, and logistical regression analyses of secondary data, meaningful associations regarding workplace discrimination and Americans with visual impairments. Study results showed that charging party characteristics of age, gender, and race were found to be predictive of types of discrimination charges and resolutions outcomes. Respondent characteristics of employer region of location, size, and industry were also found to be predictive of types of discrimination charges and resolution outcomes. Differences were revealed between discrimination charges before and after the enactment of the ADAAA, yet not between resolution outcomes before and after the enactment of the ADAAA. Additionally, discrimination charges and resolution outcomes were determined to be associated with one another. Implications for employees, employers, and professionals who work with individuals with visual impairments are addressed and recommendations for further research are provided.

Embedded within the notably constrained American state, how can regulatory agencies ensure that enforcement goals are met? Some analyses suggest that this is not so easily done; rather, constraints on agencies' formal administrative powers are said to threaten their capacity for effective regulation. But recent scholarship contends that such accounts underestimate the pivotal and oftentimes `hidden' regulatory role played by less formal mechanisms of enforcement, such as private litigation. Building on this revisionist strain, this dissertation project closely examines the ways in which constrained agencies look outside themselves - and their formally granted administrative authority - for enforcement power by developing incentive structures that motivate private actors to engage in litigation that advances regulatory goals. Through an historical analysis of the development of the regulatory capacity of three agencies - the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Office of Equal Opportunity at HUD - this project uses qualitative and quantitative approaches to explore how and when regulatory agencies choose to focus their limited resources on mobilizing private enforcement of public policy. First, using a careful examination of agency and presidential archival materials, I specify the mechanisms by which agency actors promote private litigation and uncover the institutional and political conditions under which this legal enforcement strategy is employed over time. And then, from these archival observations, I construct original quantitative measures capturing the deployment of these legal enforcement strategies, and conduct statistical analyses to confirm the success of agency efforts to encourage private litigation over time. Ultimately, by reconsidering how to integrate informal mechanisms of enforcement, like agency-motivated private litigation, into theories of bureaucratic regulation, this research contributes to our practical understandings of day-to-day agency behavior and to our conceptions and assessments of state capacity, more broadly.

ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF ADA TITLE I ALLEGATIONS OF WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION AS FILED WITH THE EEOC BY PERSONS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS Jessica Erin Hurley A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Health Related Sciences—Rehabilitation Leadership Virginia Commonwealth University, 2011 Dissertation Chair: Brian T. McMahon, Ph.D., CRC This study explores employment discrimination as experienced by persons with mental illness who filed allegations under Title I (the employment provisions) of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. The entire universe of employment discrimination allegations filed under Title I of the ADA from July 26, 1992 (its first effective date) until the present is maintained by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in a database named the Intermission System (IMS). This database contains over 2 million allegations of workplace discrimination filed not only under Title I of the ADA, but also under all statutes in its jurisdiction. From the IMS, two extractions containing ADA Title I allegations only and ranging from July 26,1992 through December 31, 2008 [the last date before the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) of 2008 went into effect] were made: the first including all Title I allegations for all impairments, not just mental illness (402,291); and the second containing only those Title I allegations filed by persons with mental illness (56,846 total: depression (25,375); unknown mental illness (11,977); anxiety disorder (10,370); bipolar disorder (7,675); and schizophrenia 1,449). Using nonparametric tests of proportion, each group of allegations is compared to the balance of mental illness allegations that is left once the group of allegations is removed. In addition, each group individually, as well as the complete group of all mental illness allegations, is evaluated with an exploratory technique called the Exhaustive Chi Squared Interaction Detector. Lastly, findings are provided and implications for employees, employers, rehabilitation professionals, policy makers, and future researchers are discussed.