Affiliations: [a]
Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
| [b] Department of Rehabilitation Counseling, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
| [c] Center for Rehabilitation Science and Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
Correspondence:
[*]
Address for correspondence: Megan McMahon, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA. Tel.: +1 804 461 9009; E-mail: meg.c.mcmahon@gmail.com.
Note: [1] Joseph P. Conway is honored posthumously for the significant contributions to this article, which were derived from his dissertation.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: This article derives from data provided by the National EEOC ADA Research Project at VCU. It is intended to document whether and how the findings of an EEOC investigation are different when allegations of workplace discrimination derived from persons with Learning Disabilities (LD) are compared to those derived from a General Disability Population (GENDIS). This particular article deals squarely with merit of the allegation upon closure of the investigation. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain differences in outcomes of investigations involving allegations derived from persons with LD vs. GENDIS. METHODS: Database mining and descriptive and non-parametric analyses of merit vs. non-merit closures were compared, as well as CHAID analysis of those factors which drive the difference in closure rates between the two groups. RESULTS: Findings indicate that in general proportion of merit for both groups is about the same. However, there are profound differences in the subcategories “settlements with benefits” (higher for LD) and conciliation failure (lower for LD; the EEOC finds merit but the employer does not concur). With respect to the CHAID analysis, only one predictor value was associated with a significant differentiation of the merit rate within LD: Merit rates were markedly higher for LD in the age group 18–21. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of EEOC investigations derived from persons with LD are not unique. Any history of LD as an “atypical” condition that is poorly understood or of questionable legitimacy is not confirmed by the “behavior” of the ADA implementation process. Indeed the only differentiation between the two groups derives from LD allegations in the narrow age band 19–21 years, wherein the veracity of their charges is elevated by 37%.
