Cited by 25Disability Education and EmploymentBusiness Law and EthicsDiscrimination and Equality Law

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Implications of ADA Litigation for Employers: A Review of Federal Appellate Court Decisions

Lee, Barbara A.·2001·Human Resource Management

Abstract

Analysis of litigation outcomes indicates that most plaintiffs who sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act are unsuccessful. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission enforcement data and six years of federal appellate court decisions were reviewed, as well as recent rulings of the United States Supreme Court. The courts are interpreting the ADA very narrowly, and very few plaintiffs prevail. The results of this research suggest that if employers engage in an individualized assessment of whether an individual is protected by the law and whether the requested accommodation is reasonable, legal liability will be minimized. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hrm.4014

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Blanck P.D., 1998, The Americans with Disabilities Act and the emerging workforce
  2. Burgdorf R.L., 1997, ‘Substantially limited’ protection from disability discrimination: The special treatment model and misconstruction of the definition of disability, Villanova Law Review, 42, 409
  3. Cashin J.R., 1996, Strategies can control multiplying ADA lawsuits, Best's Review—Property and Casualty, 97, 86
  4. Chirikos T.N., 1991, The Americans with Disabilities Act: From policy to practice, 150
  5. Collignon F.C., 1986, Disability and the labor market, 196
  6. 10.2307/3312372 · DOI
  7. D'Agostino T., 1997, Defining “disability” under the ADA: Revised and expanded 1997 edition
  8. 10.2307/3053836 · DOI
  9. 10.2307/255999 · DOI
  10. Hodges A.C., 1994, The Americans With Disabilities Act in the unionized workplace, University of Miami Law Review, 45, 567
  11. Janofsky J.C., 1993, Whoever wrote ADA regs never ran a business, The Wall Street Journal, 12
  12. Lanctot, 1997, Ad hoc decision making and per se prejudice: How individualizing the determination of ‘disability’ undermines the ADA., Villanova Law Review, 42, 327
  13. LaPlante M.P., 1991, The Americans with Disabilities Act: From policy to practice, 55
  14. 10.1016/1053-4822(92)90011-E · DOI
  15. Lee B.A., 1995, Employer response to disability: Preliminary evidence and a research agenda, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 8, 209, 10.1007/BF02627842 · DOI
  16. Livingston S., 1991, New rights law is expected to bring more disabled into the workplace., Newark Star Ledger, 40
  17. Locke S.S., 1997, The incredible shrinking protected class: Redefining the scope of disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Univ. of Colorado Law Review, 68, 107
  18. 10.1007/BF01390353 · DOI
  19. 10.1037/h0099449 · DOI
  20. 10.2307/3481155 · DOI
  21. Murphy R.K., 1991, Reasonable accommodation and employment discrimination under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Southern California Law Review, 64, 1607
  22. Myers v. Hose 50 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 1995). · DOI
  23. O'Melveny M.K., 1994, The Americans with Disabilities Act and collective bargaining agreements:Reasonable accommodations or irreconcilable conflicts?, Kentucky Law Journal, 82, 219
  24. Pritchard, 1995, Avoiding the inevitable: Resolving the conflicts between the ADA and the NLRA, The Labor Lawyer, 11, 375
  25. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00881.x · DOI
  26. Sanders v. Arneson Products 91 F.3d 1351 (9th Cir. 1996). · DOI
  27. Schoenfeld S.L., 1989, Sex discrimination in higher education employment: An empirical analysis of the case law, Journal of Law and Education, 18, 567
  28. Smith J.L., 1992, Accommodating the Americans with Disabilities Act to collective bargaining obligations under the NLRA, Employee Relations Law Journal, 18, 273
  29. Smolowe J., 1995, Noble aims, mixed results, Time, 54
  30. 10.2307/256505 · DOI
  31. Vassel R.A., 1994, The Americans with Disabilities Act: The cost, uncertainty and inefficiency, Journal of Law and Commerce, 13, 397
  32. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00898.x · DOI
  33. 10.1016/S1053-4822(97)90024-3 · DOI
  34. Wilkinson W., 1997, Judicially crafted barriers to bringing suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act, South Texas Law Review, 38, 907
  35. A review of two additional years of ADA litigation (through June 22 2000) reveals that plaintiffs are no more successful after the U.S. Supreme Court rulings than before and that the use of the “regarded as disabled” theory has not appreciably increased the proportion of plaintiffs who prevail (Lee 2000).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lee, B. A.
Affiliations
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
Corresponding author
Lee, Barbara A.
Venue
Human Resource Management
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-03
Volume
40
Issue
1
Pages
35-50
ISSN
  • 0090-4848 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-050X
OpenAlex
W2150485762
Cited by
25
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2
FWCI
7.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Human Resource Management (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Disability Education and Employment
  • Social Sciences › Law › Business Law and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Discrimination and Equality Law
Keywords
Americans with Disabilities Act, employer liability, reasonable accommodation, individualized assessment, Supreme Court decision, litigation outcomes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review