1 Employment and Implications of Legal Definitions of Disability. Presenter: Chrisann Schiro-Geist and Emer Broadbent. >> MARISSA: Good afternoon, everyone. This is Marissa Demaya at ILRU in Houston. And welcome to our webcast today, The Implications of Legal Definitions of Disability on Employment. You are connected to the ILRU page for this webcast where we've posted information about today's presentation. I'm sorry, excuse me. If you are using the RealPlayer to submit questions, you can click at the bottom of the page where it says click here to E-mail your questions and they'll be sent to us or you can also send us an E-mail at webcast@ilru.org. This is a live delivery, so sometimes things happen or if anything occurs you can certainly give us a call at our technical assistance line. Can you do that by dialing (713)520-0232. Today our presenters are Chrisann Schiro-Geist and Emer Broadbent. Chrisann is with -- she is vice provost of academic affairs at the University of Memphis, and she is a professor in the department of counseling, education and psychology and research. Emer Broadbent is assistant professor in the division of social work at the University of Memphis School of Urban Affairs and Public Policy. Welcome Chrisann and Emer. 2 >> EMER: Thank you. >> CHRISANN: Hi. Yeah, we're going to try to speak slowly so we can follow and go through some of the definitions of disability. We're going to talk about how that affects people who are looking for work in light of the disincentives to employment. And then Emer will talk to you about theoretical stuff he has around issues of power and stability. And again, how that affects employment and then he'll send any questions that are still there. So I think we want to start talking about how confusing it can be for people with disabilities and their representatives in their families because we define disability differently under different legal aspects. And of course people's perceptions of disability and whether they have a disability or not are relevant to these legal definitions. But for example, people who have -- who are disabled because of an accident at work under workers' compensation law are what we call occupationally disabled. That means they may or may not be able to go back to their previous employment and, therefore, they deserve something because of that if that injury was at work. But people who apply for disability funding under the Social Security Administration's SSI and SSDI are people who are adjudicated by a five-step process which I think you can see on the screen who are not working, who have been out of work for at least a year, who have a severe disability which may or may not meet the listings of impairment, and if it doesn't meet the listings of impairment which means they are pretty severely disabled, then can they go back to their former work or to any work available in the United States? That's a pretty 3 complicated definition. It takes several reviews to come up with that evaluation. Sometimes even all the way to a hearing with a hearing officer/adjudicative law judge and a whole court proceeding to come to understanding of whether this person is too severely disabled to work or not. And unlike workers' comp means you can't work at any job at all anywhere in the United States. And what it really means is you can't make more than $850 a month doing anything. So you can work part time by this definition, although that was not originally how it was interpreted. A person is disabled because of a severe disability and there is a list of severe disabilities so they may fall under that listing or they may have to be adjudicated as severely disabled as a combination of those disabilities and they have to be employable. They have to be feasibility of employment or they won't be able to receive those services. So here we have a huge contradiction. We have people who are so severely disabled that they can't work, receiving payments, but then we won't them under the Ticket to Work program to try to get work. These are people who might have tried for a year and a half to two years to get themselves declared unable to work at any job in the United States. And now we have a wonderful program that says assign you special services to get back to work. Some contradiction, and we hope that that happens because we know that there is huge value in work and that people with disabilities who can even engage in part-time employment often see themselves as more functional in society, contributing in some way and we encourage them to participate at their maximum level. Although not everybody is capable of working. Our definition of disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act 4 which is really an employment act, although there are employment provisions, but an antidiscrimination act and this has been a huge benefit. I know people have debated about whether the ADA is valuable or not, and I think one of the things that's happened since its inception in 1990 and its full implementation in 1994 is that there is an awareness of these issues. There is an awareness. There have been many lawsuits filed. One of the things new under ta. DA is that people with disabilities who worked or felt they were discriminated against could sue the employer who had discriminated against them or the entity that didn't provide accessibility, et cetera, et cetera. But under this definition of disability, a person may not even have a disability but may be thought to have a disability and might be discriminated against because of that impression that they are disabled. So this is very confusing. We don't have a single definition of disability or what it means. To be disabled under ADA is to be able to sue and receive money under that, you may just be someone who people think has a disability and you've been discriminated against. Under workers' comp, as I said before, you may not only go back to a particular job you had and under the Social Security Act you can't do any work anywhere in the country. And yet all these people under these different laws are perceived to be disabled. And so this is very confusing when we professionals who care about people with disabilities and whose job it is to get them back to employment, if that's their goal, want to work with them. Also, the disability community, there are issues around severity of disability. For example, issues around blindness may be perceived as how 5 visually impaired does a person have to be before they can't work? And someone who is just merely legally blind -- I'm not saying that as an exposure to a common upon, not my opinion, well, they can still do lots of stuff. Maybe they can't drive, but they can do lots of stuff. Well, you know, again, if it's the law, it's the law and if legal blindness is covered, then that is a disabling condition that is covered by the Social Security disability act for example. Degrees of impairment in other areas like hearing impairment for example, the level of hearing impairment covered to receive money under Social Security may need to be very severe to be able to receive services under voc rehab the person may not have to have as high a hearing loss, but may be their hearing loss is also combined with some other disability, physical disability or psychological disability, et cetera. So this is very confusing to the people with disabilities who are trying to receive services under one act or another or trying to receive payments under one act or another. It's very confusing to the people who work with people with disabilities. I actually wrote a book many years ago and much of it was devoted to this definition of disability. So this was pre-ADA so that was a new one that came along. But just being able to try to explain to the people who were there working with people with disabilities how the definition of disability changed regarding employment issues from law to law and how that would affect their clients. And of course family members who want know why so and so down the block is getting support and my family member with disability is not. And it could be because of the laws with which they are trying to work within 6 and also the level of disability and which those things are covered. So I think it would be really nice if we could come to some common ground or if we could just even take the time to explain to our clients that, you know, it's not us. We're not being bad guys. We're working within the regulation that is we have to work with depending on what the circumstances are and that we can give advice to a person who may be under multiple disabilities or who may not fit any of those definitions but is merely perceived as a person with a disability. Okay, the other -- this is a comment under the ADA, employment is one of them, but we know that employment in state and local government is covered. We know that public accommodations also must be accessible, telecommunications and then miscellaneous provisions. Some of the catches within the ADA law are language that was put into the law initially to allow its passage. There were lots of people who didn't want the ADA to pass in 1990. So terms such as qualified essential tasks of the job and undue hardship were left vague. And left to be argued out in the courts and they have been now that we're more than ten years past the initiation of the ADA. We have -- some things have been ironed out by legal battles. We have a clear idea of what an undue hardship is for a small business versus a large business. We found out some interesting things regarding placement and one is due to a very large study that's gone on with the -- retrospectively at the cases that have been filed, many people working in the area of placement with persons with disabilities thought that we had to really approach employers to do a hard sell. The employers were the bad guys and if we could just get them to employ people with disabilities -- 7 although we know that people with disabilities are good workers and on time workers and et cetera, et cetera from our DuPont studies. When we looked retrospectively at the cases that had been won and that had been sought out and won, it's not that employers don't hire people in the first place, but when it comes time to promote somebody, they don't get promoted at the same rate. And if there is a recession, that those people with disabilities may be the first ones to be let go. So it isn't the first hire as we in the field have been teaching for years and years that is the problem. Its retaining jobs and promotion in jobs and the unfortunate loss of jube if there is a cut back. So we look at the history of this legislation from the 1930's where the Social Security Act first came in until 1970 where disability piece of it came in. 1973 amendments to the voc Rehab Act which were kind of our first civil rights piece, the federal employment for example was in that 1973 act, the fact that you can't discriminate in public employment. And then the ADA from '90, '92 and '94, the (inaudible) which I mention in the 1999 and then the post improvement act which took the voc rehab system and put it under the Department of Labor in a combined piece of legislation which is again an issue today. We may be losing our voc rehab system due to the fact that it is so close to workforce improvement centers because the Department of Labor may be more powerful than the other agencies. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that if it's confusing, it's because it's confusing and we're not coming up with a simple definition because we have acts that kind of coincide with each other and collide with each other in the process. 8 In that piece itself makes -- can make -- easily make persons with disabilities, we professionals who work with persons with disabilities and their families and the public at large very confused about this and powerless. And that powerlessness really I am pedes the placement activities. So I'm going to turn the presentation over to my colleague, Dr. Broadbent, who has a well worked theory around power and employment and people with disabilities and with the background that I've just given about you the legislation and how confusing it is in the United States, when other places have simpler -- much simpler laws about disability or in some cases no law on disability. We won't go into that and we want to work with those countries to improve that situation, but I think if you understand it is confusing because the definitions come from different laws and don't necessarily support each other, that when Dr. Broadbent goes into his power piece, you'll understand that powerlessness is a great issue and that that is the thing that really needs to be tackled other than the definitions of disability is ways to empower people with disabilities, no mat where the disability is, visual impairment, or hearing impairment, or physical disability or mental disability, that the people themselves and their families and their support systems need to be empowered so that they really can approach these confusing laws from a powerful position. So aisle turn it over to Dr. Broadbent. >> EMER: Thank you very much. Are there any questions on what Chris has had to say? >> DAWN: No questions have come in yet. Thank you. >> EMER: Okay. Thanks for the introduction to power theory, 9 Chris. One thing that I'm working on and have been working on over time is the notion that an impairment becomes a disability when the impairment is perceived to or actually diminishes one or more power bases. So you might wonder what are power bases? The theory is sociology suggests that holding of power is based on some or all of the following variables: Income, money or property -- I'm sorry? Are those questions coming to us? Hello? Charisma, perceived beauty or ability to articulate, history, intelligence, and education. Is Chris still on the line? >> DAWN: This is Dawn. I don't have a phone number to be able to get through to her. Can you hear those sounds? >> DAWN: I can. Someone definitely has their phone not on mute. I'm sorry. >> EMER: Okay. I'm sorry. So I was wondering if that was somebody trying to talk to us. >> MARISSA: No, I think we might be hearing -- I think that might be Chrisann. Let me see if I can maybe get in touch with her. We apologize. If you can speak a little bit louder. Thank you so much. >> EMER: Of course. Thank you. So as Chris has been mentioning, the different legislation gets to some of these issues, the perception that someone has a disability or the society is attempting to help people make more money to increase their power. So what I would like to promote is that we, as profession always, approach these different power bases individually and collectively to continue enhancing the status of people with disabling conditions of one 10 sort or another to enhance their status within the community. If you look over time, for instance, in the '30's when Social Security became important, it was when there was a huge number of people with money problems. If you look after the World War II, that is was when educational opportunities became available because of huge populations of folks who had acquired disabilities. The civil rights movement was certainly part of the genesis of legislation having to do with people with disabilities in the '60's and the '70's. It's critical that we ride these overall trends to enhance the opportunities for people who have long term and/or who have acquired disabilities. We need to maintain our educational opportunities. We need to enhance the acquisition of education by people with disabilities in the law and advocacy and policy. Another thing that I'm promoting that I think we'll have a research base for in the not too distant future is that there is a -- there should be or there will be a way to measure the amount of power that an individual has based on their having or not having high levels of these different power bases. In addition to -- in addition to measuring education or measuring amount of money that someone has, we also need to measure the issues that they have that are culture-based. In my course work with my students, we're talking about, for instance, the perception that a person who does not have a hearing loss in a deaf society becomes disabled. That's a critical notion that we need to keep in mind. In addition, as we work with 11 legislators, we need to be very much aware of bottom line issues. For instance, Chris was alluding to until employers recognize that people who are perceived as having disabilities are indeed valuable until they realize that a profit can be made off of them. They will not be trying to include them in their manufacturing and other industries. So it's incumbent upon us to not only become educated and skill-based, but then to reach out and educate potential consumers of people with disabilities. >> MARISSA: Excuse me, Emer, this is Marissa. Is there any way we can get you to speak up just a little bit? Thank you. >> EMER: Yeah. Actually, I am -- at this point I'm really at the end of what I have to say. Are there any questions from the listeners? >> DAWN: I haven't received any at this time. >> MARISSA: If I may interrupt again, folks, if you have any questions, you can certainly E-mail us at webcast@ilru.org. Excuse that interruption. Or you can also if you're using the RealOne Player, there is a place at the bottom of the screen that says click here to E-mail questions. >> EMER: Okay, Marissa? >> MARISSA: Yes. >> EMER: I think I'm finished. >> MARISSA: You are finished. Okay, well, Dawn, if we don't have any more questions -- >> DAWN: No, I'm sorry. >> MARISSA: Okay, I think this might be the conclusion of our 12 presentation today. If you do happen to have questions after we've ended, you can certainly E-mail us and we'll make sure that they get to Chrisann and Emer. In closing, I would like to thank Chrisann and Emer for joining us today. I would also like to acknowledge Madan Kundu and Alo Dutta of rehabilitation research institute for under represented populations, funding support Title II of the Rehab Act called for making research findings available to consumers and their families, et cetera. Our webcast team today is Dr. John Searle and Marie Bryant, Center for Collaborative and Interactive Technologies at Baylor. And our webcast team here at ILRU, Ms. Dawn Heinsohn, Marj Gordon, Sharon Finney, Maria del Bosque, Roxy Funchese, Rose Shepherd and I think that's it. Thank you so much for joining us. Please check again our webcast calendar for any upcoming presentations. We've got quite a calendar for you. I think this concludes our webcast for today. Thank you for joining us everyone. >> EMER: Thank you.