abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

23 May 2012

Author:
Elaine Cohen, CSRwire Talkback

Can Protecting Disabled Workers Do More Harm than Good? [USA]

What do Starbucks, United Parcel Service, Daimler Chrysler Corp [now Daimler, Chrysler], Wal-Mart Stores, Sears Roebuck and United Airlines have in common? They all featured in the [US] Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Hall of Fame, a report of 20 significant cases that were litigated or resolved by the EEOC between 1995 and 2009, in support of the rights of people with disabilities...These...[cases] are outliers on the discrimination spectrum, though they may be representative of more widespread practice...The Wall Street Journal informs that the EEOC may be proposing to expand the definition and reach of what [is required of employers. It says,]... "...these changes would increase employer costs and litigation risk and make them think twice about hiring disabled workers..." ...The opposite side of this coin, however, is the opportunity that companies gain from employing people with disabilities.