The workplace discrimination experiences of middle-age and younger adult workers with disabilities: Results from the National EEOC ADA Research Project

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the employment discrimination experiences of middle-aged workers with disabilities. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the employment discrimination experiences of middle-age charging parties with disabilities (ages 35-54 years) in comparison to younger adult charging parties with disabilities (ages 25-34 years) on demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, disability type), characteristics of employers against whom allegations were filed (e.g., size, industry type), the nature of the discrimination, and the resolution of these allegations. METHODS: The study utilized data from the Integrated Mission System of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). RESULTS: Findings indicated that, compared to younger adult charging parties, middle-age charging parties were more likely to be male and Caucasian; more likely to file allegations on the basis of diabetes, heart/cardiovascular disease, back impairments, and cancer; and less likely to file allegations on the basis of anxiety disorders, manic depressive disorder, schizophrenia, or other psychological impairments. Middle-age charging parties were less likely than younger charging parties to allege discrimination related to unlawful discharge and constructive discharge, but more likely to allege discrimination related to layoff. They were less likely to allege discrimination against small employers and employers in the finance/insurance, accommodation/food service, and retail trade industries. Middle-age charging parties were more likely to allege discrimination against employers in the manufacturing, transportation and warehousing, utilities, educational services, and public administration industries. Middle-age charging parties were slightly less likely than younger adult charging parties to have ADA title I allegations resolved in their favor through the EEOC's investigatory process. CONCLUSIONS: Implications for working with prime age workers with disabilities are discussed.