Speech impairment and workplace discrimination: The ... - IOS Press

163

Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 23 (2005) 163–169 IOS Press

Speech impairment and workplace discrimination: The national EEOC ADA research project Pamela R. Mitchella,∗ , Brian T. McMahonb and Dawn McKee a a

b

Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA

Abstract. There is a substantial lack of knowledge regarding the extent to which employment discrimination may be perceived or experienced by individuals with speech impairments. This investigation examined 1,637 such allegations of employment discrimination extracted as part of the National EEOC Americans with Disabilities Act research project. Allegations by individuals with speech impairments were compared to a group of individuals with orthopedic and visual impairments. The group with speech impairments consisted of a higher proportion of males and younger individuals than the comparison group. There also were differences in the alleged discrimination issues for the two groups, most notably a higher proportion of allegations of harassment and a lower proportion of allegations related to reasonable accommodation in the group with speech-impairment. In addition, the proportion of allegations between the two groups differed with respect to industry type, employer region and employer size. The proportion of cases judged to have merit was similar across the two groups, but there were within group differences in the pattern of merit resolutions. Keywords: Workplace discrimination, speech impairment, disability, Americans with Disabilities Act

1. Introduction The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has been an integral component of the movement toward full integration of individuals with disabilities when functional limitations present barriers to equal participation and opportunity in the workplace. Speaking is one of the major life activities that may qualify as a functional limitation under ADA, and is an area that has received limited attention to date. This investigation examines previously undocumented characteristics of ADA allegations filed by persons with speech impairment, and their resolutions. Since the effective date of ADA Title I (Employment Provisions), the Equal Employment Opportunity Com∗ Address

for correspondence: Pamela R. Mitchell, Ph.D., School of Speech Pathology and Audiology, A109 MSP, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242-0001, USA. Tel.: +1 330 672 2672; Fax: +1 330 672 2643; E-mail: [email protected].

mission (EEOC) has received and resolved 1,637 allegations of employment discrimination involving persons with speech impairment, representing 0.5% of the EEOC database extracted for the National EEOC ADA research project. Speech impairments under ADA encompass a broad range of communication-related disabilities and severity levels, and include functional limitations in intelligibility of speech (articulation disorder), quality of voice (voice disorder), producing smooth fluent speech (fluency disorder/stuttering) and using spoken words to communicate (language disorder). The National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders reports that approximately 1 in 6 individuals (17%) in the United States has such a speech, voice, fluency or language disorder [6,7]. 1.1. Speech impairment and employment There is a substantial lack of knowledge to illuminate what issues individuals with speech impairment may

1052-2263/05/$17.00 © 2005 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved

164

P.R. Mitchell et al. / Speech impairment and workplace discrimination: The national EEOC ADA research project

face in employment, and the extent to which discrimination may be perceived or experienced. It is known that a variety of communication disorders result in negative perceptions by raters in listening studies [9], so it is reasonable to predict that these negative perceptions might influence employment. Stuttering (fluency disorder) has been the area of speech impairment that has been studied most often relative to employment. Hurst and Cooper [2] found that 85% of employers – felt stuttering decreased a person’s employability and opportunities for promotion and – share a widely accepted impression that individuals who stutter are nervous, shy, quiet, selfconscious, withdrawn, tense, anxious, fearful, reticent, and guarded [1,2]. One survey documented that individuals who stutter report high rates of unemployment, discrimination in obtaining employment, and denial of promotions because of stuttering [8]. Employment challenges extend to those individuals with severe communication impairment who require assistive technology (i.e., augmentative and alternative communication). Rare but available studies report much higher unemployment for these individuals than the general population, and substantial challenges in finding jobs, communicating on the job, physical accessibility, and workplace preparation [4]. These findings are not entirely surprising. Employers frequently rate communication among the most important skills for employees. Since 1999, the National Association of Colleges and Employers annual Job Outlook Survey has found communication at the top of the list of items important to employers since 1999 [5]. Speech is a primary mode of communication in adults, and so speech impairment does appear to impact on employer satisfaction and result in negative perceptions and employment decisions. 1.2. Research questions A better understanding of the nature of employment discrimination involving speech impairment can result in more appropriate job counseling and training plans affected individuals. The following questions will be explored to address this issue: 1. What is the employment discrimination experience of Americans with speech impairment with respect to the demographic characteristics of individuals who file allegations with the EEOC? (These persons are known as Charging Parties, hereafter referred to as CPs.)

2. What is the employment discrimination experience of CPs with speech impairment with respect to the nature of discrimination alleged to occur? All charges involve some allegation of an adverse action by employers, and these are known as “Issues.” 3. What is the employment discrimination experience of CPs with speech impairment with respect to the industry designation, size, and location of employers against whom EEOC allegations are filed? These employers are known as “Respondents.” In rare instances, Respondents may be labor unions or employment agencies. 4. What are the legal outcomes or Resolutions of the EEOC investigatory process with respect to allegations brought by CPs with speech impairment? These Resolutions may favor either the CP (“With Merit;” i.e., discrimination did occur) or the Respondent (“Without Merit;” i.e., discrimination did not occur).

2. Project design and methods 2.1. The national EEOC ADA research project Research questions were addressed by examining allegations of workplace discrimination filed by CPs with speech impairment relative to those of two other disability categories combined: Orthopedic and Visual Impairments. These two groups were chosen because speech impairment is not a distinguishing characteristics, therefore providing a cleaner contrast of features of employment discrimination that might be specific to speech impairment. The source of data was a database maintained by the EEOC in its Integrated Mission System (IMS), and its predecessor the Charge Tracking System. IMS is used to track the filing, investigation, and resolution of all allegations of workplace discrimination. The IMS contains solid information that provides a definitive way for researchers to begin to answer the questions posed above. Under an Interagency Personnel Agreement involving EEOC, the lead author and Virginia Commonwealth University, the US EEOC ADA Research Project (Project) was begun in 2003 to utilize the IMS for research purposes [3]. Project investigators extracted and refined IMS data in order to retrieve, verify, and examine closed ADA allegations, known as resolutions. This article describes one aspect of this data mining effort.


In consultation with EEOC, the investigators arrived at criteria for the extraction of allegations into various “study datasets.” By intent, these criteria favor a consistent and complete investigatory process over a larger number of allegations. Specifically, the extraction process excludes all files that involve retaliation, contain errors, are unresolved, or in which Merit is determined by an agency other than EEOC. After these refinements, the study dataset for the Project is robust with 328,738 resolutions dating from the ADA Title I effective date (July 27, 1992) through September 30, 2003. [A complete description of the IMS, study database, and extraction process are given in McMahon et al. [3]] 2.2. Limitations of the study dataset In the current study, the population of interest includes all reported allegations of discrimination closed under ADA Title I that meet the aforementioned extraction criteria. The researchers acknowledge that this is not the entire population of people with speech impairment who have experienced employment discrimination. About 30% of all reported allegations were deleted in the extraction process. In brief, the researchers chose to restrict their population of interest in the interest of consistent investigatory guidelines, procedures, and reporting. A second limitation pertains to the coding process itself as used by the EEOC. The IMS makes no distinction regarding type or severity of speech impairment, thus, the distribution of particular diagnoses (e.g., articulation versus fluency disorder) resulting in the functional limitation of speaking cannot be derived from the coding scheme. The researchers feel that the value of the dataset in bringing to light previously unknown information about workplace discrimination toward persons with speech impairment far outweighs the limitation that this “broad brushstroke” imposes.

165

Table 1 Distribution of allegations by race for speech and orthopedic/vision impairments Race White African American Other Hispanic/Mexican Asian American Native American

Percent speech 59.4 22.3 8.3 6.4 1.9 0.5

Percent ORTHVIS 60.9 20.9 6.6 8.3 1.4 0.7

Table 2 Differences in proportions for employment issues by group Issue Discharge Harassment Hiring Terms Reasonable accommodation Promotion Constructive discharge Discipline Wages Layoff Assignment Intimidation Demotion Suspension Training Benefits Other Job classification Reinstatement Benefits: Insurance Prohibited Med. Inquiry Union representation Referral Recall Testing Exclusion: Union Involuntary retirement Qualifications Apprenticeship Benefits: Pension Negative references

Speech 0.2563 0.1211 0.1180 0.1038 0.0933 0.0544 0.0352 0.0303 0.0284 0.0210 0.0198 0.0191 0.0154 0.0136 0.0136 0.0093 0.0062 0.0056 0.0049 0.0043 0.0043 0.0043 0.0037 0.0031 0.0031 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006

ORTHVIS 0.2862 0.0716 0.0530 0.0851 0.2367 0.02331 0.0209 0.0325 0.0245 0.0296 0.0170 0.0131 0.0168 0.0122 0.0054 0.0137 0.0057 0.0022 0.0175 0.0049 0.0039 0.0046 0.0010 0.0078 0.0009 0.0009 0.0032 0.0022 0.0001 0.0017 0.0013

Difference −0.0299 0.0495 0.0650 0.0187 −0.1434 0.0311 0.0143 −0.0022 0.0039 −0.0086 0.0028 0.0060 −.0014 0.0014 0.0082 −0.0044 0.0005 0.0034 −0.0126 −0.0006 0.0004 −0.0003 0.0027 −0.0047 0.0022 0.0010 −0.0013 −0.0003 0.0005 −0.0011 −0.0007

2.3. Study design and methods The design includes a number of variables: 1. Characteristics of the CP (CP), including disability status as well as information for age, gender, and race/ethnicity. All are nominal measures except for age, which is a ratio measure. Parameters of CP race/ethnicity are provided in the Foreword, Table 4.2. Characteristics of the Respondent include location/region (nominal), industry designation or SIC code (nominal), and number of employees (interval). Parameters for the Respondent variables are provided in the Foreword, Tables 5–6.

2. Issues (nominal) include 25 specific employment decisions such as hiring, promotion and discharge that may involve discrimination. Definitions of Issues are provided in the Foreword, Table 2. 3. Resolutions (nominal) describe a final EEOC determination as to whether or not discrimination actually occurred. Definitions of EEOC Resolutions are provided in the Foreword, Table 3. The study database includes 328,738 allegations of employment discrimination under ADA Title I that were received, investigated and closed by the EEOC during the study period (11.2 years). For the purpose

166

P.R. Mitchell et al. / Speech impairment and workplace discrimination: The national EEOC ADA research project Table 3 Difference in proportions in industry type by group

Industry Services Not classified Retail Manufacturing Public administration Transportation Finance/Insurance Construction Wholesale Agriculture Mining

Speech 0.2859 0.1655 0.1584 0.1382 0.0925 0.0907 0.0350 0.0202 0.0089 0.0030 0.0018

ORTHVIS 0.2808 0.1180 0.0993 0.2153 0.1014 0.0975 0.0360 0.0192 0.0184 0.0073 0.0067

Difference 0.0051 0.0475 0.0591 −0.0771 −0.0089 −0.0068 −0.0001 0.0001 −0.00953 −0.0043 −0.0049

of this investigation, two groups of disability categories were extracted: Speech Impairment: 1,637 allegations. Referred to as SPEECH, this is the target study group for this research. Speech impairment is defined in the EEOC database as “An impairment related to the act of speaking such as stuttering or difficulty in vocalizing.” Orthopedic Impairments and Visual Impairments. Referred to as ORTHVIS: 34,863 allegations involving Orthopedic (n = 27, 833) and Vision Impairments (n = 7, 030) combined. ORTHVIS was created to provide a comparison group of allegations from individuals whose disabilities would not be predicted to cooccur with speech impairment. Orthopedic Impairment was defined in the EEOC database as “Impairments of extremities (hand, legs, feet, shoulder, etc.) caused by chronic pain, stiffness, or weakness in bones or joints. There is some loss of ability to move or use part or parts of the body. Includes arthritis.” Vision Impairment was identified as: “Blindness is visual acuity of not better than 20/200 in the best eye with correction. Visual impairment is a condition covering varying degrees of visual loss. May include blindness in one or both eyes.”

2.4. Data analysis Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and tests of independence of proportions and means using an alpha level of p < 0.001. The alpha level was set conservatively based on the statistical power inherent in a dataset of this size (N = 36.500 allegations), and to yield a reasonable experiment-wide error rate due to the multiple tests conducted.

3. Results 3.1. Demographic characteristics of CPs The mean age for CPs in the Speech-Impaired group was significantly younger than the ORTHVIS group (41.26 years versus 44.80 years), (t = 8.455, df = 1197, p 0.001). There were fewer Hispanic/Mexican and more African American and Other CPs in the SPEECH group. The racial/ethnic distribution of CPs in the two groups was similar otherwise and is listed in Table 1. The gender distribution of CPs with speech impairment was 62.5% males, and 37.3% females. This pattern is consistent with prevalence data on gender and speech/language impairment, which document a higher prevalence of communication disorders in males [9]. The ORTHVIS comparison group contained a relatively equal distribution of male and female CPs (50.9% and 49.1% respectively) resulting in a significant difference in gender distribution between the two groups (X 2 = 100.303, df = 1, p 0.001). 3.2. CP issues The most frequent issues in allegations brought by individuals with speech impairment were: discharge, harassment, hiring, terms and conditions and reasonable accommodation. There was a statistically significant difference between the SPEECH and ORTHVIS group in employment issues (X 2 = 3945, df 30, p 0.001). The largest differences between these groups were in the issues of hiring (12 to 5%), harassment (12% to 7%), promotion (5 to 2%), reasonable accommodation (9% to 24%) and discharge (29% to 25%). See Table 2 for details. 3.3. Employer region For the SPEECH group, 46% of allegations came from the South, 22% from the Midwest, 17% from the West, 13% from the Northeast and 1.2% from Territories. For the ORTHVIS group, 36% came from the South, 31.3% from the Midwest, 20% from the West, 12.5% from the Northeast and 0.4% from the Territories. There was a statistically significant difference in the regions from which allegations arose for the two groups studied (X 2 = 255.620, df = 4, p 0.001). The largest contributing difference was for the Midwest regions, where more allegations arose for the ORTHVIS group.


3.4. Employer size The distribution between the two groups in terms of employer size was also statistically significant (X 2 = 35.942, df = 3, p 0.001). The major difference arose at the two ends of the distribution. More allegations arose from the SPEECH group from employee sizes of 15–100 workers (37 to 32%); and more from the ORTHVIS group arose from employee sizes of 500 + workers. (45% to 38%). 3.5. Industry designation The most frequent industries from which allegations related to speech impairment arose were services, not classified, retail, manufacturing, public administration and transportation. This distribution was similar for the ORTHVIS group, but the proportion of retail and not classified industry types was higher for allegations from the speech-impaired group. Another difference was found for the manufacturing industry, which had 7.7% more allegations for ORTHVIS. All other industry designations were less than 1% different between the two groups. The between group difference in industry designation was statistically significant (X 2 = 123.662, df = 10, p = 0.0001). See Table 3 for the distribution of allegations by industry. 3.6. Resolutions Resolutions of cases were examined in two phases. Initially, all cases (including administrative closures, without merit and merit determinations) were examined. The second phase excluded administrative closures from merit analyses to focus on cases where final rulings were made about discrimination. Neither method yielded a significant difference between group proportions in terms of frequency of cases judged to have merit. When all cases were included, 77.9% % of allegations in the SPEECH group were judged as either without merit or administrative closure, while 22.1% were judged with merit. When administrative closures were excluded, merit outcomes shifted to 74.8% judged as without merit and 25.2% with merit. For the ORTHVIS group, when administrative closures were included, 78.8% were ruled without merit or administrative closure and 21.2% of cases were judged with merit. Excluding administrative closure, for the ORTHVIS group, 76% were ruled without merit, and 24% were ruled with merit. These findings are consistent

167

with findings on resolutions for several other disability groups [3]. The second phase of analysis was conducted on resolution patterns for the cases only judged as “Without Merit” or “With Merit” utilizing within group comparisons. These analyses are reported below. 3.6.1. Merit by gender A similar proportion of allegations by males and females with speech impairment was judged to have merit (23.4% and 28.3%, respectively). Similarly, no significant difference was found in the proportion of merit findings by gender for the ORTHVIS group. 3.6.2. Merit by race For the purposes of the merit by race analysis, all “unknown” race designations were removed from both SPEECH and ORTHVIS groups. For SPEECH, there was no significant difference in the proportion of merit resolutions by race. For ORTHVIS, a significant difference was found between the proportion of merit resolutions by race, with Mixed Ethnicity, Other and White race designations having higher than expected proportions of merit findings when compared with other race categories. 3.6.3. Merit by region A comparison of merit outcomes for SPEECH by employer regions suggested a statistically higher than expected proportion of merit resolutions occurred for the North (36%), Territories (35.76%) and Midwest (27%) regions, with fewer merit rulings for the West (21.5%), South 22.3%), (X 2 = 18.230, df = 4, p 0.001). Merit resolutions by region for the ORTHVIS group were higher than expected for the North (24.8%), Territories (32%), West (25.06%) and Midwest 24.8%) regions and lower than expected for the South (21.5%) (X 2 = 80.790, df = 4, p 0.001). 3.6.4. Merit by industry There was no significant difference in the proportion of merit resolutions by industry within the SPEECH group. Once again, by contrast, there was a significant difference in the proportion of merit resolutions by industry for the ORTHVIS group, with the following industries representing the highest proportions of merit rulings: transportation (27.3%), construction (26.6%), public administration (24.8%), wholesale (24.7%), and finance (24.6%) (X 2 = 57.921, df = 11, p 0.001).

168


3.6.5. Merit by employer size There were no significant differences in the proportion of merit resolutions by employer size for the SPEECH or the ORTHVIS group. 3.6.6. Merit by issue Within the SPEECH group, no significant difference was found in the proportion of merit resolutions by Issue. For the ORTHVIS group, there was a significant within group difference in the proportion of merit determinations by issue (X 2 = 238.013, df = 40, p 0.001). Issues with higher than predicted merit determinations in ORTHVIS were: hiring, reasonable accommodation, terms and conditions, assignments, insurance benefits, intimidation, job classification, prohibited medical inquiry, recall, reinstatement, and seniority.

4. Discussion These findings suggest characteristics of perceived and actual workplace discrimination toward persons with speech impairment which may be used by VR counselors and others working to help these individuals achieve equitable access to employment opportunities. Finding from this investigation suggest notable between group differences for SPEECH and the ORTHVIS comparison group. The differences in CP demographics included age, race and gender variables, with the SPEECH group comprised of younger individuals, more males, and more African American and “Other”, but fewer Hispanic/Mexican individuals. The most frequent Issues for individuals with speech impairment were discharge, harassment, hiring, terms and conditions and reasonable accommodation, in that order. Compared to ORTHVIS, individuals with speech impairment filed more allegations based on perceived discrimination in hiring (7% difference), harassment (5% difference), discharge (4% difference) and promotion (3% difference), and substantially fewer allegations related to reasonable accommodation (15% difference). This pattern is consistent with reports in the literature of negative perceptions of individuals with speech impairment. These negative “first impressions” may lead to negative hiring decisions, and to perceived harassment once on the job. Fewer allegations of discrimination based on reasonable accommodation for individuals with speech impairment may be a function of lack of awareness of accommodation options

for speech impairment or a lack of perceived need for accommodations by CPs. There also were differences in respondent characteristics between the two groups. The proportion of retail and not classified industry types was higher for allegations from the speech-impaired group. Another difference was found for the manufacturing industry, which had 7.7% more allegations for ORTHVIS. There were fewer allegations arising from the Midwest for the SPEECH group, and from employers with 15 to 100 workers. The examination of features of merit resolutions for the SPEECH group revealed that cases generally were judged with merit with no significant differences explained by variables such as age, gender, issue, etc. The only variable for which a significant difference was found was in a higher than expected number of merit resolutions for allegations filed in the North, Midwest and Territories. By contrast, allegations by the ORTHVIS group revealed significant differences in merit resolutions related to race, issue, and region. Since this investigation was descriptive and historical in nature, it is not possible to make firm predictions related to the patterns noted. The strength of these historical data, however, make it reasonable to at least speculate that such patterns may occur in future allegations of workplace discrimination under ADA. Given this assumption, professionals working with individuals with speech impairment who are in the workplace, or about to enter or re-enter the workforce, may anticipate that those individuals might benefit from information and training with particular attention to skills related to acquiring a job, and strategies for recognizing and coping with harassment in the workplace. In addition, information related to achieving promotions and preventing job loss might be of particular benefit to those with speech impairments. References [1] M.I. Hurst and E.B. Cooper, Employer attitudes toward stuttering, Journal of Fluency Disorders 8 (1983), 1–12. [2] M.I. Hurst and E.B. Cooper, Vocational rehabilitation counselors’ attitudes toward stuttering, Journal of Fluency Disorders 8 (1983), 123–127. [3] B.T. McMahon and L. Shaw, Workplace Discrimination in America: The National EEOC ADA Research Project, National Council on Rehabilitation Education, Tucson, AZ, February 2005. [4] D. McNaughton, J. Light and S. Gulla, Opening up a whole new world: Employer and co-worker perspectives on working with individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication, Augmentative and Alternative Communication 19(4) (2003), 235–253.

P.R. Mitchell et al. / Speech impairment and workplace discrimination: The national EEOC ADA research project [5]

[6]

[7]

National Association of Colleges and Employers. Communication Skills, Honesty/Integrity Top Employers’ Wish List for Job Candidates, 2005, January 20, Retrieved from http://www. naceweb.org/press/display.asp?year=&prid=207. National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, 2003, June 25, Strategic plan: Plain language version FY 2003–2005. Retrieved from http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/ about/plans/strategic/nsrp 02.asp>. National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Dis-

169

orders, Research in human communication. Bethesda, MD: Author, 1995. [8] K.L. Opp, P.A. Hayden and G.T. Cottrell, Stuttering and employment: A survey report, Annual Convention of the American Speech, Language and Hearing Association, Boston, MA 1997. [9] D.F. Williams and S. Dietrich, Perceptions of communicative disorder: Verification and specification of rater variables, Journal of Communication Disorders 34 (2001), 255–266.