1. Running Head: WHO’S DISABLED AND WHO’S NOT
Who’s Disabled and Who’s Not: A Look at EEOD Guidelines and Court Decisions
Megan M. Seidl
Winona State University

2. WHO’S DISABLED AND WHO’S NOT 2
Abstract
This paper explores the various precautions and standards required of Human Resource
managers when hiring and accommodating disabilities in the workplace. Research follows the
relationship between disabled employees as well as their interactions with managers. With both
guidelines and court precedent to follow, managers are able to best determine how to behave in
relation to this sensitive topic. In researching several kinds of disabilities, this paper also follows
how organizations are able to effectively employ disabled individuals into their workplace.
Similarly, interviews with Human Resource professionals as well as current disabled workers
help to contrast alternating perspectives.
Keywords: reasonable accommodation, disabilities, guidelines, precedent

3. WHO’S DISABLED AND WHO’S NOT 3
Who’s Disabled and Who’s Not: A Look at EEOD Guidelines and Court Decisions
As it directly relates to the workplace, disabilities, and those who identify as being
disabled, often deal with special circumstances in organizations spanning across the globe. While
there are numerous ways to define disability on paper, Human Resource managers need to give
particular care during the hiring process and after bringing disabled workers into an organization
due to its sensitive nature —which can mean things can become quite complicated. A disability
can be both mental and physical, so occasionally conditions must be met within an organization
to help an individual best thrive in that environment. While this seems quite reasonable in theory,
the amount of support HR managers are obligated to give their employees may be interpreted
quite differently. Due to this obstacle, there are both guidelines as well as court precedent to
advise on dealing with such situations. In this way, determining and implementing all
precautions and standards in an organization is crucial knowledge when interacting with who is
disabled and who is not.
Literature Review
Who Defines Disabilities
Over the years, as disabilities are becoming more and more commonplace in many
organizations, there have been a variety of competing viewpoints on what defines a disability.
Although it may be straightforward, it is important that it be specified in order to best regulate
and educate employers. This movement towards bringing disabilities to light truly began in 1988
after the nomination of President George H.W. Bush into the Republican Party: “’I’m going to
do whatever it takes to make sure the disabled are included in the mainstream’” (Turner, 2004, p.
63). While this declaration is seemingly standard, it came at a time where President Bush was

4. WHO’S DISABLED AND WHO’S NOT 4
merely nominated as his party’s frontrunner. In this way, Bush brought forward his ideals for the
future of the country and it’s workers.
Over the years, there have been a multitude of variations of what a disability truly is
specified to be. In 1980, a disability was a “loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological,
or anatomical structure or function.” Later, it was any “disadvantage for a given individual”
which impaired ability. More recently, “every individual can experience a decrement in health
that could require accommodation” (Davis, 2005, p. 306). Evidently, as time passed, it appears
that the clarification of what a disability is has developed to be even more vague. In this way, it
is becoming more common to have a disability, and so an HR manager’s obligation to reasonably
accommodate is essential.
Types of Disabilities. There are several different classifications of disabilities in society
today; with each disability, a manager must regard them separately. In each workplace, it is vital
that with every distinction there are different ways to accommodate to the needs of the disabled
individual. Among the disabilities in the workplace, disabilities such as hearing impairments,
visual impairments, speech disorders, learning and mental disability, arthritis, and paraplegia and
quadriplegia are seen most often (Davis, 2005, p. 308). In many cases; however, disabilities are
seen separated into mental/emotional and physical disabilities. With physical disabilities, some
accommodations that can be made for employees are the removal of barriers that inhibit
mobility, hearing aids/interpreters, or computers with voice synthesizers. Similarly, some
accommodations an employer can provide with emotional/mental disabilities are the ability to do
one’s work from home, special color-coding, or being demonstrated tasks rather than explaining
them (Davis, 2005, p. 308). While the above disabilities are very often diagnosed, there are
occasional temporary circumstances—such as asthma—that are also something to consider: “A

5. WHO’S DISABLED AND WHO’S NOT 5
person handicapped because of attenuated capabilities due to environmental or attitudinal
barriers is not necessarily disabled” (Ward, 2005, p.152). While a worker may occasionally be
weakened by difficulty breathing due to asthma, a work environment would be pressed to
describe this individual as disabled in an office environment.
The Hiring/Firing Process
In the perspective of the employer (and Human Resource Department), it is incredibly
important during the hiring and layoff processes to not only be discrete, but also to affirm that an
organization is willing and able to accommodate to a disabled employee. Similarly, a complaint
from an interviewee, who feels they are being treated unfairly due to their disability during either
process, must be considered equally serious. In an organization, “disabled workers are highly
valuable sources of essential knowledge and skills contributing to overall productivity,” so it is
important that all interviewees are given equal opportunity (Davis, 2005, p. 311).
Particularly throughout the hiring process, a manager must be mindful in considering the
abilities of a disabled person. By being mindful, the manager takes into account if the individual
is able to perform the tasks required of them. If a disabled interviewee has equal experience and
education as a non-disabled candidate, it is reasonable to chose the employee best capable of
performing the tasks of the job; however, there is evidence which leans heavily towards disabled
individuals being put at a disadvantage even still.
Statistics. In the United States, there are approximately thirty million people with
disabilities. Out of these, 34.6% are employed. 79.8% of people are employed who do not have a
current disability (Copeland, Chan, Bezyak, & Fraser, 2010, p. 427). These numbers are
extremely telling and disheartening due to the large margin of separation between the two
statistics. With that many people dependent on getting a fair go in a job interview, there are

6. WHO’S DISABLED AND WHO’S NOT 6
regulations for employers to follow that can help close this gap. An “employer [must] carefully
review all of its policies and procedures used in recruiting and selecting employees to ensure that
individuals with disabilities have equal opportunities to participate in the hiring process and to be
considered for a job” (Klimoski & Palmer, 1993, p. 16). The Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission enforces these kinds of policies heavily across the nation.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a state-run authority of the United
States government that regulates the rights and policies of disabled workers in workplaces across
the United States. This commission was enacted “to enforce federal laws governing employment
such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(ADEA), Equal Pay Act (EPA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)” (Fritz &
Kleiner, 2000, p. 53). All of these laws are implemented because of the importance of every
person being given a fair chance no matter under what circumstances. Simply in their creation,
the laws portray that every individual is a blessing, and diversity is a part of what makes this
country truly great. As a commission, the EEOC ensures it is known that “disabilities take many
forms and are not always recognizable, and [employers] should be sensitive” (Starnes, 1999, p.
25). In addition to this, it acts as a map for employers to follow. For example, as pregnancy is
often not predicted upon being hired at a new place of work, the ADA—and therefore the
EEOC—makes sure to involve “temporary impairments” to regulations so that a pregnant worker
is not fired unjustly due to her new limitations (Simon, 2015). The EEOC expects both the HR
managers and employees to work together to make the disability a non-issue, and makes certain
that the organization follows through in their responsibilities (Starnes, 1999, p. 25). It is made

7. WHO’S DISABLED AND WHO’S NOT 7
clear within the various laws that disabled workers are neither a burden nor an extra
responsibility, but rather a great addition in any office.
What Does the Legal System Say?
In addition to the EEOC, court precedent is an effective way of determining the rights
and wrongs of treating disabled individuals in the workplace. In many cases, precedent
established in a previous court case has been widely beneficial for changing policy and clearing
up interpretation of disability laws. While this may bring forward many positive results, it may
oppositely result in confusion, or even counter-productivity. Under the regulations of the ADA,
“the fact that an impairment exists does not assure the individual…be protected” (Miller, 2011).
In this way, legal interpretation can be difficult in the workplace because of conditions upon
being hired. In Young vs. UPSPS, a worker, after becoming pregnant and told to be carful lifting
heavy objects, was fired when she couldn’t complete her job. There was no accommodation
placed because employees with such medical conditions were to be treated equally as other
employees (Simon). When there is a desire among a large number of people to be treated as an
equal compared to non-disabled employees, there can be difficulties in interpretation—leading to
a lot of dissatisfaction. Similarly, there are cases such as Sutton v. United Air lines, Murphy v.
United Parcel Service, Albertson’s v. Kirkingburg, and the 2002 Toyota Motor Manufacturing,
Kentucky Inc. v. Williams which actually diminished the amount of protection workers got after
going to the Supreme Court (Simon, 2015).
Example. More specifically, in the Murphy v. United Parcel Service, a mechanic with
hypertension was required, per the job requirement, to have blood pressure under a level
established by the Department of Transportation. With medication, Murphy was within his limit;
however, after being tested without medication, he was found not within a safe level and was let

8. WHO’S DISABLED AND WHO’S NOT 8
go. After going through the court system, a circuit court determined that Murphy was not
regarded as disabled (because of medication allowing normal function), so he was not protected
under the ADA regulations (Turner, 2004, p. 410). In this way, physical testing often limits
opportunities for disabled workers (Mello, 1993, p. 168).
Discussion
In order to best understand disabilities in the workplace, it is essential to receive the
perspective of both disabled employees well as Human Resource professionals who commonly
deal with disabled workers. By interviewing these individuals, this paper will better determine
how effective regulating agencies such as the EEOC are at providing a fair workplace for all.
Employee Perspective
While there have been many significant steps taken to do right by disabled workers—by
providing reasonable accommodation and fair treatment in hiring and layoff processes, these
laws would be in vain unless the disabled population feel they are effective. For many disabled
workers, who have had issues finding a job since the time they were teenagers, a full-time
position in a company is something they have never truly been able to achieve. Part-time
employers are often more willing to hiring disabled workers due to a lack of insurance benefits
given in these positions; however, many part-time employers still indirectly find ways to avoid
hiring disabled workers (C. Maschmeyer, personal communication, March 22, 2016).
Example. In the case of Carol Maschmeyer, an Arby’s employee of eight years, honesty
is the best policy when entering into a work relationship. In this way, Carol has always been very
upfront with her interviewers by readily explaining to them that she has had gran mal and petite
seizures since she was twelve years old. During the application process, disabled workers find
they have to sell themselves even more to perspective employers: “Even though I have a

9. WHO’S DISABLED AND WHO’S NOT 9
disability, I can offer you more than somebody else can…When you’re selling yourself, they are
seeing the pluses instead of the negatives” (C. Maschmeyer, personal communication, March 22,
2016). Her experience at Arby’s, however, has been wildly different than many of her other work
experiences. At her current job, Carol has found that managers adapt and accommodate to her by
utilizing her skills (such as her personality) and shying away from things she would not have as
much success in (such as multitasking at the drive-thru register). In many cases, co-workers and
mangers become like family, so the best interest of all the employees is the only focus of the
workplace—eliminating this segregation of disabled and abled workers. A prevalent idea of the
perspective of disabled employees is that disabled individuals are people, too. In fact, “people
with disabilities work harder than a lot of people have to work…once you get your foot in the
door you don’t want to let it out” (C. Maschmeyer, personal communication, March 22, 2016).
Employer Perspective
Employers from organizations across the nation are given countless guidelines in order to
best provide for each and every member of their organization daily. The EEOC and various
disabilities laws, in this way, are essential knowledge for all employers. While there is often a
stereotypical image in society of employers treating disabled employees unfairly, it is evident
that these many laws are established to help alleviate this problem. As part of their job
description, Human Resource professionals are often in the position of hiring into the company.
Due to this practice, they are excellent sources of information on the true goings-on off the
support of disabled employees.
Example. As a figure commonly responsible for interacting with the needs of disabled
employees, Laura Gill, a Human Resource Manager at DuPage Medical Group, is a wealth of
information regarding disabled employees/interviewees in the workplace. During the interview

10. WHO’S DISABLED AND WHO’S NOT 10
process, even in the presence of a disabled employee, an individual is seen as being able to
perform the full responsibilities of the job: “If someone comes in with a physical disability, we
assume that they can do the job and treat them just like any other candidate” (L. Gill, personal
communication, March 28, 2016). Once the interviewee’s abilities have been established,
recruiters can best work with the individual to cater to and consider their limitations. For
example, in a previous job, Laura experienced a blind individual who was interviewed for a
housekeeping position. Due to safety concerns, the organization was not comfortable giving the
individual this position; however, they found a position in laundry washing clothing that could
be done as well by him as any other worker. This type of accommodation is not only guided by
commissions such as the EEOC, but by an employer who cares about all of their employees
needs. While physical disabilities are more prevalent during the interview process, many
emotional/mental disabilities are seen after the fact. In any case, managers and supervisors are
“told to the extent that they need to know in order to accommodate [the disability],” and do so
gracefully (L. Gill, personal communication, March 28, 2016).

11. WHO’S DISABLED AND WHO’S NOT 11
Conclusions and Future Study
This paper examined the importance of inclusion and disabled workers in the workplace.
Every worker has the right to be given a fair interview; both court precedent and government-run
commissions are established in workplace culture to ensure that the dynamic between employees
and employers is agreeable. Whether you are a disabled worker or an HR manager looking to
care for their disabled employee, being able to accommodate any type of condition is extremely
important to the success of both parties. With the system that is currently in place, not only is it
easier to determine who’s disabled and who’s not, but also it allows for those who are disabled to
be productive and valued in any organization. As with many things, however, there is always
room for improvement in relation to disabilities in the workplace. In interviewing and
researching the perspective of disabled workers and employers, both viewpoints are given equal
priority in this paper, which is vital to truly understanding this important topic.

12. WHO’S DISABLED AND WHO’S NOT 12
References
Copeland J, Chan F, Bezyak J, & Fraser RT. (2010). Assessing cognitive and affective reactions
of employers toward people with disabilities in the workplace. Journal of Occupational
Rehabilitation, 20(4), 427–434 8p.
Davis L. (2005). Disabilities in the workplace: recruitment, accommodation, and retention.
AAOHN Journal, 53(7), 306–312 7p.
Fritz S., & Kleiner B. (2000). EEOC guidelines that employers should know. Equal
Opportunities International, 19(6/7), 53-57.
Klimoski, R., & Palmer, S. (1993). The ADA and the hiring process in organizations. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice And Research, 45(2), 10-36.
Mello, J. A. (1993). Employing and Accommodating Workers with Disabilities: Mandates and
Guidelines for Labor Relations. Labor Law Journal, 44(3), 162-170.
Miller, C. (2011). EEOC reinforces broad interpretation of ADAAA disability qualification: But
what does “substantially limits” mean? Curators of the University of Missouri Law
Review.
Simon, E. (2015). Parity by comparison: The case for comparing pregnant and disabled workers.
Columbia Journal of Gender & Law Columbia Journal of Gender and Law.
Starnes S. Psychiatric Disabilities & the ADA: An Analysis of Conventional Defenses & EEOC
Guidelines. Review Of Litigation [serial online]. Winter 1999;18(1):181. Accessed March
30, 2016.
Turner, R. (2004). The Americans with disabilities act and the workplace: A study of the
supreme court’s disabling choices and decisions. NYU Annual Survey of American Law,
60, 379-452.

13. WHO’S DISABLED AND WHO’S NOT 13
Ward, A. C., & Baker, P. A. (2005). Disabilities and impairments: strategies for workplace
integration. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 23(1), 143-160.