Policy on accommodating disabilities of employees
This increase in charges reflects, in part, the prevalence of psychiatric disorders in our society.Data gathered by the National Institute of Mental Health and published in a 1994 U. Congress Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) report, Psychiatric Disabilities, Employment, and the Americans With Disabilities Act, indicate that more than one in five American adults experience some diagnosable mental disorder in a given year.Instructions for making a request are provided in the publication Info Source, copies of which are located in local Service Canada Centres.
Our management is amazing and are incredibly helpful and hardworking. Mental illness has touched many of our families and many of our friends. ADAs Title I principles prohibiting discrimination in the workplace were formulated for both physical and psychiatric disabilities; after the ADA passed, however, the statute as applied to physical disabilities received the most attention. [E]xperts say that discrimination has decreased and that employers generally are willing to provide the special accommodations needed by employees with physical impairments. Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits a private employer with 15 or more employees from discriminating against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.The EEOC had been flooded with questions about the [ADA], mostly from employers, [and the EEOC] wanted to show that the law applies to people with psychiatric disabilities in exactly the same way it applies to people with physical disabilities. It applies well-established ADA principles in the context of psychiatric disabilities. Ann Reesman, general counsel for the Equal Employment Advisory Council, a group of about 300 large employers, said the Psychiatric Enforcement Guidance was helpful, because it gave us insights into the EEOCs position on things and how to avoid running afoul of the agency. It creates this uncertainty, for example, by suggesting that a condition need not be included in the American Psychiatric Associations current edition of the DSM in order to be a covered mental disability under the ADA, by providing that personality disorders may be covered disabilities, and by expanding the list of major life activities, to include such things as sleeping, concentrating, and getting along with other people. The National Federation of Independent Business issued a statement calling the new guidelines lengthy, confusing and dangerously vague, leaving small business wide open to the risk and cost of frivolous litigation. Meisinger, senior vice president of the Society for Human Resource Management, which represents personnel directors at companies of all sizes, said the Psychiatric Enforcement Guidance creates confusion for employers, especially small employers who dont have any special expertise in ADA provisions.Jonathan Mook, a lawyer counseling both large and small employers in their attempts to deal with compliance under the ADA, testified at the Commissions ADA hearing that the EEOCs guidelines represent at least a good initial step in the area of trying to clarify and provide guidance to employers on what obligations are under the statute, and how the statutory term[s] should be interpreted. Mook noted, however, that based upon my conversation with employers, in dealing with this area, I think there are many aspects of that guidance that really fail to take into account the real-world problems that employers experience in dealing with individuals who have or claim to have psychiatric disabilities. The Psychiatric Enforcement Guidance, however, did not depart dramatically from existing ADA case law, according to Robert L. C., firm that represents management nationwide in ADA, EEOC, employment, and labor law matters. Dunston observed that most attorneys specializing in the ADA, whether for plaintiffs or management, tend to agree that much of the Psychiatric Enforcement Guidance is consistent with ADA case law and the Rehabilitation Act. Dunston believes the strong reaction to the Psychiatric Enforcement Guidance was based on employers realization of the breadth of the ADA and its potential implications in the workplace.