Discriminatory Behaviours Towards Employees with Disabilities: An Inductive Empirical Legal Research Approach to Ontario Human Rights Tribunal Cases

Simple item page
dc.contributor.advisorKlassen, Thomas R.
dc.contributor.authorWaxman, Douglas Adam
dc.date.accessioned2022-12-14T16:19:06Z
dc.date.available2022-12-14T16:19:06Z
dc.date.copyright2022-05-12
dc.date.issued2022-12-14
dc.date.updated2022-12-14T16:19:06Z
dc.degree.disciplineCritical Disability Studies
dc.degree.levelDoctoral
dc.degree.namePhD - Doctor of Philosophy
dc.description.abstractResearchers have devised various methods to gauge employers’ perceptions of employees with disabilities. Most of these methods involve employer self-reports, with only a few studies examining the behaviour of employers. This study applied a unique, untapped data set—decisions from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario—that captures retrospective information on the behaviour of employers. Forty-three decisions were analyzed, resulting in 16 cases with findings of discrimination, which were further coded and analyzed for iterative, emergent patterns of employer behaviour and for how employers socially construct disability. The first objective of the research was to discern patterns of employer behaviours towards employees with disabilities. Six patterns emerged from the data. First, employers deployed ten different explanations to excuse their discriminatory behaviour: (1) the employee had a high incidence of absenteeism, (2) the employee had abandoned their job, (3) the employee’s behaviour was inappropriate, (4) the employee was in the probationary period and could be fired at will, (5) the employee violated the employer’s zero-tolerance policy, (6) the employer’s decision to terminate was made before the disability was disclosed, (7) the employee’s safety was at risk, (8) the medical documentation provided did not provide sufficient information, (9) the employee’s performance was poor, and (10) employee had discipline issues. Second, all the accommodation requests ended with the ultimate employment penalty—termination of the employee’s employment, constructive termination, or resignation. Third, it was found that a significant number of the employees experiencing discrimination had either a combination of mental health issues, hidden disabilities, or precarious employment. Fourth, contact theory (Allport 1954) posits that contact between different groups will lead to attitude change, diminish intergroup prejudice and improve intergroup harmony. Contrary to contact theory, experience with an employee with a disability did not arrest the employers’ discriminatory behaviours. Fifth, the experience in these cases is contrary to the theory that suggests that organisations with more flexible structures are more likely to accommodate employees with disabilities (Baumgärtner, Dwertmann, Boehm and Bruch 2015). Lastly, unlike Beatty et al. (2019) findings that large, public-sector and unionised organisations are more inclusive, in the cases here, the size of the organisation, the presence of a union or the presence of human resource capacity in the organisation did not mediate inclusion and responsiveness to disability needs. The second objective of this research was to examine how employers socially construct employees with disabilities. Employers’ excuses socially construct employees with disabilities in pejorative ways. Moreover, the workplace is comprised of layers of social constructions (constructive discrimination, harassment, denial of nonapparent disabilities, construction of organisational culture, construction of psychological safety and organisational justice climates, notions of the standard worker, leadership style, belief in a just world, trust). The most significant conclusion is that discrimination was not driven by financial costs related to accommodations or other reasons employers typically give to explain their discriminatory behaviour. Most accommodation requests involved modifications of the scheduling but not financial outlays. When expense was required, none of the accommodations resulted in an undue hardship. However, it is hypothesised that discrimination of these employees results from managers’ implicit presumption that managing employees with disabilities would consume inordinate amounts of managers’ time. In reality, some accommodations might require additional manager time, such as flexible scheduling but no time commitment remotely approaching undue hardship. The implication is that misinformation about managers’ time commitments to manage employees with disabilities adds a layer of complication in creating disability confident employers, particularly as it likely operates at an unconscious level.
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10315/40603
dc.languageen
dc.rightsAuthor owns copyright, except where explicitly noted. Please contact the author directly with licensing requests.
dc.subjectOrganizational behavior
dc.subjectSociology
dc.subjectLaw
dc.subject.keywordsDisability
dc.subject.keywordsEmployment
dc.subject.keywordsDiscrimination
dc.subject.keywordsSocial construction
dc.subject.keywordsActual behaviours
dc.subject.keywordsTime
dc.subject.keywordsOrientation towards time
dc.subject.keywordsImplicit bias
dc.subject.keywordsOrganisational behaviour
dc.subject.keywordsOrganisational culture
dc.subject.keywordsOrganisational climate
dc.subject.keywordsDisability climate
dc.subject.keywordsPsychological climate
dc.subject.keywordsJustice climate
dc.subject.keywordsRoutines
dc.subject.keywordsOrganisational learning
dc.subject.keywordsActs of commission
dc.subject.keywordsHuman rights
dc.subject.keywordsReasonable accommodations
dc.subject.keywordsJustifications
dc.subject.keywordsExcuses
dc.subject.keywordsConstructive discrimination
dc.subject.keywordsHarassment
dc.subject.keywordsPoisoned work environment
dc.subject.keywordsLeadership style
dc.subject.keywordsLeader-member exchange
dc.subject.keywordsDeservedness
dc.subject.keywordsTrust
dc.subject.keywordsContact theory
dc.subject.keywordsTheory of planned behaviour
dc.subject.keywordsAbsenteeism
dc.subject.keywordsJob abandonment
dc.subject.keywordsJob performance
dc.subject.keywordsProbation
dc.subject.keywordsZero-tolerance policies
dc.subject.keywordsDisability disclosure
dc.subject.keywordsEmployee characteristics
dc.subject.keywordsOrganisational characteristics
dc.subject.keywordsHuman resources
dc.subject.keywordsUnionization
dc.subject.keywordsAffect
dc.subject.keywordsJust world hypothesis
dc.subject.keywordsIdentity maintenance
dc.subject.keywordsDerogation
dc.subject.keywordsDirty work
dc.subject.keywordsDenial
dc.subject.keywordsWillful ignorance
dc.subject.keywordsPhysical distancing
dc.subject.keywordsTemporal management
dc.titleDiscriminatory Behaviours Towards Employees with Disabilities: An Inductive Empirical Legal Research Approach to Ontario Human Rights Tribunal Cases
dc.typeElectronic Thesis or Dissertation

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Waxman_Douglas_A_2022-PhD.pdf
Size:
3.86 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.87 KB
Format:
Plain Text
Description:
Download
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
YorkU_ETDlicense.txt
Size:
3.39 KB
Format:
Plain Text
Description:
Download

Collections

Critical Disability Studies

All items in the YorkSpace institutional repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved except where explicitly noted.