Employ Respons Rights J (2008) 20:157–164

DOI 10.1007/s10672-008-9063-5

Reflections from Employers on the Disabled Workforce:

Focus Groups with Healthcare, Hospitality
and Retail Administrators

Brigida Hernandez & Katherine McDonald &

Marielle Divilbiss & Elizabeth Horin & Jessica Velcoff &
Oscar Donoso

Published online: 21 February 2008

# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Abstract Historically, employment rates for people with disabilities have been low.
Despite legislation that prohibits the discrimination of this group in work settings,
employers are reluctant to hire people with disabilities. The purpose of this qualitative study
was to explore the experiences of employers with workers with disabilities. Three focus
groups were conducted with 21 administrators from three business sectors (i.e., healthcare,
hospitality, and retail). Content analysis indicated five primary themes: (1) importance of
disability employment agencies and disability advocates; (2) persistence of manager bias;
(3) lack of promotion opportunities; (4) costs associated with having workers with
disabilities; and (5) benefits associated with having workers with disabilities. Implications
include the need for intervention studies that address the challenges experienced by
individuals with disabilities, particularly during hiring and promoting phases of
employment, and educational efforts to inform administrators and managers of the few
costs and numerous benefits associated with having workers with disabilities.

Key words workers with disabilities . employer attitudes

B. Hernandez (*) : M. Divilbiss : E. Horin : J. Velcoff : O. Donoso

Department of Psychology, DePaul University, 2219 North Kenmore, Chicago, IL 60614, USA
e-mail: bhernan4@depaul.edu
E. Horin
e-mail: ehorin@depaul.edu
J. Velcoff
e-mail: jvelcoff@depaul.edu
O. Donoso
e-mail: odonoso@depaul.edu

K. McDonald
Department of Psychology, Portland State University, 1721 SW Broadway, Portland, OR 97201, USA
e-mail: kmcdona@pdx.edu
158 Employ Respons Rights J (2008) 20:157–164

Introduction

Historically, individuals with disabilities have not fared well in the US’ labor market. Of over
21 million working-age adults with disabilities, only four out of ten work full- or part-time. In
contrast, the employment rate among non-disabled working-age adults is eight out of ten
(Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Demographics and Statistics
2005). In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA, Public Law 101–336, 42 U.S.C. §
12101) extended civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities within the employment
arena. Specifically, Title I requires that employers (with 15 or more workers) provide equal
employment opportunities for qualified applicants and employees with disabilities. This Title
covers all aspects of employment and requires the provision of reasonable accommodations,
unless the accommodation poses an undue hardship to the employer. Despite the passage of
the ADA, Harris Polls of adults with disabilities dating back to 1986 indicate that
employment figures for this group have remained low (Taylor 2000).
Employer perceptions toward the disabled workforce have been cited as a significant
barrier to the employment of people with disabilities. In a review of research, Hernandez et
al. (2000) found that while employers tended to espouse positive global attitudes toward
workers with disabilities, when specific attitudes related to the hiring of this group were
assessed, views were more negative. In particular, there were concerns with the
productivity, demand for supervision, and promotability of workers with disabilities, as
well as concerns with the cost of accommodating their needs (Jonhson et al. 1988;
McFarlin et al. 1991). Furthermore, these concerns have been persistent, as evident in prior
reviews of employer perceptions of workers with disabilities (Greenwood and Johnson
1987; Wilgosh and Skaret 1987).
From the research (Hernandez et al. 2000), it is apparent that an overarching concern
among employers has been that the costs associated with hiring people with disabilities will
outweigh the benefits. These perceived concerns with costs include the provision of
expensive accommodations, decreased employee productivity, and increased supervisory
time. However, such concerns may have limited supporting data. For example, Sears,
Roebuck, and Company reported that from 1978 to 1996 nearly all of the 436
accommodations sampled required little to no cost; moreover, during 1993 to 1996, the
average direct cost of an accommodation was $45 (Blanck 1996). Studies conducted by the
Job Accommodation Network indicated that over two-thirds of effective accommodations
implemented cost less than $500. Furthermore, for every dollar invested in accommoda-
tions, companies reported an average of $40 in benefits (Job Accommodation Network
1999). In addition, E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company conducted surveys of its
employees with disabilities in 1958, 1973, 1981, and 1990. Their findings indicated that
workers with disabilities were equivalent to their non-disabled counterparts with respect to
job performance, attendance, and safety (DuPont 1993).

Purpose of the Study

To date, there have been numerous studies examining employer perceptions of workers
with disabilities (Greenwood and Johnson 1987; Hernandez et al. 2000; Wilgosh and Skaret
1987), and the majority have used quantitative surveys or quasi-experimental designs. As
such, we have a general sense of employer concerns with the disabled workforce. While
such data are valuable, the in-depth experiences of employers have not been more fully
explored. Thus, this qualitative study used focus groups to explore the experiences of
Employ Respons Rights J (2008) 20:157–164 159

administrators from the healthcare, hospitality, and retail sectors in relation to their workers
with disabilities. Specifically, experiences with recruiting, interviewing, hiring, providing
accommodations to, retaining, and promoting employees with disabilities were addressed,
along with perceptions of costs and benefits associated with this workforce. Focus groups
are particularly useful when researchers are exploring a new or under-investigated
phenomenon as they produce concentrated data on the topic of interest and rely on the
interaction or synergy of the group in doing so (Morgan 1997).

Method

Participants

Participants included 21 employers from 16 companies representing the healthcare (n=7),

hospitality (n=5), and retail (n=4) sectors from the greater Chicago, IL, USA area.
Individuals in upper level management and hiring positions were invited to participate
because they had direct experience with the employment process and issues related to
hiring people with disabilities. Participants included Directors and Managers of Human
Resources (n=13), Employment Directors and Specialists (n=5), President and CEO (n=1),
Vice President (n=1), and District Store Manager (n=1).

Instrument

The focus group guide was developed for the purpose of this study. The guide consisted of open-
ended questions and clarifying probes that were asked as needed. Specific questions included:
1. What has it been like:
a. Recruiting applicants with disabilities?
b. Interviewing applicants with disabilities?
c. Hiring workers with disabilities?
d. Providing accommodations to workers with disabilities?
e. Retaining workers with disabilities?
f. Promoting workers with disabilities?
2. Are there costs (financial or organizational) associated with hiring people with
disabilities?
3. What benefits (financial or organizational) are associated with hiring people with
disabilities?
4. Do you have any other thoughts or experiences relevant to recruiting, interviewing,
hiring, retaining, promoting, and/or working with people with disabilities?

Procedure

Participating companies were recruited by the City of Chicago Mayor’s Office for People
with Disabilities, Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development, and disabilityworks (a
partnership between the city of Chicago and the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce which
brings resources to businesses, people with disabilities, and service providers throughout
Illinois). More than 50 companies were invited to participate as part of a larger study;
however, time constraints limited the participation of many invitees. The majority of
160 Employ Respons Rights J (2008) 20:157–164

participating companies had over 150 employees and prior experiences with hiring people
with disabilities.
One focus group was held per sector (i.e., healthcare, hospitality, and retail), for a total
of three focus groups. Focus groups were facilitated by the first two authors who had
training and experience with this process (Morgan 1997). Focus group sessions lasted
approximately 90 min, were audio-taped, and transcribed verbatim. Transcriptions were
analyzed using content analysis (Miles and Huberman 1994). Four researchers indepen-
dently coded the three focus group transcriptions to identify core concepts and relationships
among them. The researchers met to discuss coding agreements and disagreements and to
build consensus on final codes.

Focus Group Themes and Discussion

Qualitative data from the focus groups were categorized into five major themes: (1)
importance of disability employment agencies and disability advocates; (2) persistence of
manager bias; (3) lack of promotion opportunities; (4) costs associated with having workers
with disabilities; and (5) benefits associated with having workers with disabilities.
1. Importance of Disability Employment Agencies and Disability Advocates
Administrators from all three sectors indicated that most employees known to have a
disability worked with agencies that specialized in the training and placement of people
with disabilities in jobs. According to participants, disability employment agencies were
critical for identifying qualified applicants with disabilities and for providing support (e.g.,
job coaches) once people with disabilities were hired. Participants from the healthcare and
hospitality sectors added that internship programs for high school and college students with
disabilities were particularly useful as they led to many successful hires. A healthcare
participant noted, “The experience of hiring people off the street…we didn’t really see a lot
of people [with disabilities] coming in. But, when you meet somebody through an
organization and they get support, you seem to have more success.” Although there were
many positive experiences with disability employment agencies, administrators expressed
concern with some agencies for not remaining in contact and stressed that ongoing
communication was key to success. In addition, participants emphasized the need for
agencies to focus on the quality of referrals (i.e., qualified applicants for specific jobs)
rather than the quantity of referrals.
Administrators also spoke about the need for disability “champions” within their
companies who would advocate strongly for the hiring of people with disabilities. These
champions included employees from the general workforce, as well as powerful and
influential administrators. Their advocacy efforts helped create viable employment
opportunities for people with disabilities. As a participant from the healthcare sector
shared, “It’s really not a lot different than breaking down any other prejudicial barrier that
we have in our society… there has to be a champion in the organization and the champion
doesn’t always have to be the CEO, but the champion has to be somebody that can
gravitate and bring in formal power to the organization.”
Previous research supports the important role that disability employment agencies and
disability advocates play in recruiting and hiring people with disabilities (Bruyère 2000;
Gilbride et al. 2003). For example, Gilbride et al. (2003) conducted focus groups and
individual interviews with people with disabilities using employment services, employers,
and disability employment agency providers. The authors found that disability agencies
Employ Respons Rights J (2008) 20:157–164 161

played an important role during the employee–employer matching process and helped
employers make accommodations. Further, Fabian et al. (1995) found that characteristics
associated with successful disability employment programs included concerns with making
a good job match; understanding job requirements, supervisory needs, and applicants’
abilities; and follow-up. With regard to disability advocates and champions, Bruyère (2000)
surveyed approximately 800 private sector and 400 federal employer representatives and
found that top management commitment to hiring people with disabilities ranked as
important when addressing barriers to their employment.

2. Persistence of Manager Bias

From administrators’ perspectives, manager bias against workers with disabilities
existed. These biases included fears that supervisory time would increase, productivity
would suffer, and frequent absences would incur if people with disabilities were hired. For
example, a hospitality sector participant stated, “I think [managers are] scared, there’s fear
there. Not knowing … how to communicate with the individual [with a disability], not
knowing what their limitations are. Specifically, to feel like it [the disability] might slow
down the operation.” The interview process seemed to be particularly challenging for
managers, as administrators described fear of disability-related litigation. Consider these
two quotes shared by participants from the hospitality and healthcare sectors, respectively,
“It’s nerve-racking in some cases [when interviewing applicants with disabilities] because
you’re kind of afraid of saying the wrong thing, doing the wrong thing” and “I think it is
scary … you are afraid that you are going to be charged with discrimination.”
Administrators also reported managerial concerns related to the cost of accommodations,
and potential for overgeneralization and increased manager bias, if a manager had a
negative experience with an employee with a disability. Often, managers’ concerns were
linked to their lack of experience with workers with disabilities and lack of knowledge with
the ADA.
The theme of manager bias against workers with disabilities has been a persistent finding
in this line of research and has been associated with a lack of experience with disability
issues. Dixon et al. (2003) found that the top employer-related barrier to hiring people with
disabilities was employer discomfort and unfamiliarity with disability issues. Bruyère’s
(2000) research also indicated that a lack of experience with people with disabilities may be
common among employers. To mitigate these negative views, building positive experiences
with the disabled workforce is critical. Research has shown that employers with previous
experiences with workers with disabilities reported more favorable attitudes toward this
group and were more willing to hire them than employers without such experiences
(Hernandez et al. 2000; Unger 2002).

3. Lack of Promotion Opportunities

Administrators shared that workers known to employers to have a disability were
employed mostly in entry-level and semi-skilled positions (e.g., clerical, food service,
laundry); few were identified as being in professional positions. Further, administrators
noted that many workers with known disabilities usually did not advance within their
organizations. The lack of promotion opportunities for this group was viewed as an issue
with both employee- and employer-related contributors. Participants speculated that
employees with disabilities might become comfortable with their positions, which in turn
inhibits the desire to be promoted. A hospitality representative shared, “I think it’s by choice
… they are happy with their jobs and they want to stay where they are.”
162 Employ Respons Rights J (2008) 20:157–164

Healthcare participants added that employees with disabilities might not seek
promotions because of new probationary periods and accessibility concerns. One health
care representative noted, “The risk is greater for someone with a disability to move out of
[a current position] than for someone without.” Participants also shared that companies did
not necessarily foster promotion opportunities for workers with disabilities. For instance, a
participant from the hospitality sector stated, “I’m embarrassed to say, I’ve never promoted
one [person with a disability] to a supervisory or higher level, but I’ve never had one ask
either.”
From an employer perspective, the Hernandez et al. (2000) literature review did reveal
concerns related to the promotability of workers with disabilities. However, most of those
studies utilized quantitative and quasi-experimental designs. To the authors’ knowledge,
this is one of the first studies to examine employers’ perspectives on promotion
opportunities for people with disabilities in an in-depth manner. From the employee
perspective, in a survey of over 1,000 individuals with disabilities, 17% indicated that they
were refused a promotion (Harris Interactive Inc., 2004). The theme of promotion
opportunities for workers with disabilities is important and warrants further investigation.

4. Costs Associated with Having Workers with Disabilities

Overall, administrators reported that the cost of accommodating workers with disabilities
was minimal. Types of accommodations provided to employees with known disabilities
included stools for check out lanes, special lighting, computer software that allows for large
font type, and availability of sign language interpreters. One healthcare participant
estimated the average accommodation cost to be under $500. A retail participant
commented, “We haven’t absorbed much cost. Sometimes, it’s a matter of making a special
badge to say, ‘Hi, I’m [employee’s name]. I’m deaf and hard of hearing.’ Which was
relatively no cost because we managed to do it ourselves.” Despite minimal costs,
participants expressed that some managers still feared that costs associated with
accommodating workers with disabilities were high.
Prior studies corroborate the experiences of our participants. Despite managerial
perception of high-cost accommodations, actual costs are usually low and reasonable. In
a study of disability-related accommodations at Sears, Roebuck, and Company, 72%
required no costs, while 27% cost less than $500 (Blanck 1996). Noteworthy, workplace
accommodations that cost over $1,000 were uncommon and found to benefit employees
with and without disabilities by providing state-of-the-art technology to perform jobs
productively, cost-effectively, and safely (Blanck 1996).

5. Benefits Associated with Having Workers with Disabilities

Lastly, administrators shared that there were numerous benefits to hiring people with
disabilities. Among this group, participants noted low absenteeism rates and long tenures.
They also described employees with disabilities as loyal, reliable, and hardworking. One
retail participant shared, “[An employee with a disability has] been with us for 35 years.
He’s never missed a day and he’s never late. Whenever there’s a snowstorm, he prepares to
get to work on time and most of the time the manager’s not there. So, we look at that
individual and say, ‘Wow! We need more guys like that.’”
An additional benefit to hiring individuals with disabilities was the diversification of
work settings, which led to an overall positive work environment. For instance, hiring
people with disabilities helped other employees be more accepting of diverse groups and
sent a positive message of independent living and community inclusion, especially for
Employ Respons Rights J (2008) 20:157–164 163

patients and customers with disabilities in the healthcare and retail sectors. A hospitality
participant indicated, “I get wonderful feedback from our associates who will say, ‘It’s so
nice that we work for a company that looks at everybody.’” A retail representative added,
“The customers really appreciate [our associates with disabilities]”.
Several studies have highlighted the benefits of employees with disabilities in terms of
productivity, reliability, and attendance (Blanck 1996; DuPont 1993; Oshkosh Area
Workforce Development Center 2007). Although benefits are considerable, the employment
rate for people with disabilities remains low. This gap suggests the pressing need to educate
the business community about the benefits of having a disabled workforce, and how these
benefits may outweigh perceived costs.

Conclusion

This study employed qualitative methods to gather in-depth data on employers’ perceptions
of the disabled workforce. From the perspectives of administrators representing the
healthcare, hospitality, and retail sectors, we learned that: (1) having committed disability
employment agencies and disability advocates within companies fostered viable employ-
ment opportunities for individuals with disabilities; (2) managers’ bias against workers with
disabilities seemed to limit the hiring of workers with disabilities; (3) employees with
disabilities rarely sought promotions and employers rarely encouraged such opportunities;
(4) costs associated with employing individuals with disabilities were minimal; and (5)
benefits to hiring individuals with disabilities included having loyal and reliable employees
who diversified the workforce.
By understanding the perspectives of employers, we are in a better position to identify
areas in need of intervention to encourage the recruiting, hiring, and promoting of workers
with disabilities. Targeted intervention efforts may prove effective in increasing
employment rates for individuals with disabilities, as legislation alone has been unable to
do so. For example, researchers can partner with disability advocates within companies to
better understand and enhance their efforts of creating viable employment opportunities for
the disability community. In addition, the experiences of companies that are successfully
employing people with disabilities can be shared with the larger business community to
foster similar experiences. Clearly, more attention needs to be paid to correcting manager
bias against employees with disabilities. Establishing mentoring relationships, whereby
managers with prior experiences with workers with disabilities mentor those with less
experience, may prove beneficial.
Lastly, to address promotion opportunities for individuals with disabilities, disability
employment agencies and employers can encourage opportunities that enhance the career
development of existing employees with disabilities. By building on the strengths and
talents of this pool of employees, the benefits would likely be reciprocal and worthwhile.
Further, it would send a powerful message of inclusion and equality throughout all levels
within corporate settings and likely impact biases that may exist among managers.

Acknowledgment We extend our appreciation to Jay Rosen, Dan Schober, Anna Kushnir, and Jessica Ruiz.
We also want to acknowledge the collaboration and commitment of disabilityworks, City of Chicago Mayor’s
Office for People with Disabilities, Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development, and Chicagoland Chamber of
Commerce to this work. Funding for this project was provided by the Illinois Department of Commerce and
Economic Opportunity (DCEO). The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily
those of our collaborators or DCEO. Marielle Divilbiss is now at Kent State University.
164 Employ Respons Rights J (2008) 20:157–164

References

Blanck, P. D. (1996). Communicating the Americans with Disabilities Act, transcending compliance: 1996
follow-up report on Sears, Roebuck and Co. Iowa City: The Annenberg Washington Program in
Communications Policy Studies of Northwestern University.
Bruyère, S. (2000). Disability employment policies and practices in private and federal sector organizations.
Ithaca: Cornell University, Program on Employment and Disability.
Dixon, K. A., Kruse, D., & Van Horn, C. E. (2003). Restricted access: A survey of employers about people
with disabilities and lowering barriers to work. John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development,
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. http://www.heldrich.rutgers.edu/uploadedFiles/Publications/
Restricted%20Access.pdf. Accessed December 13, 2007.
DuPont de Nemours and Company (1993). Equal to the task II: 1990 DuPont survey of employment of
people with disabilities. Wilmington: DuPont de Nemours and Company.
Fabian, E. S., Luecking, R. G., & Tilson, G. P. (1995). Employer and rehabilitation personnel perspectives on
hiring people with disabilities: Implications for job development. The Journal of Rehabilitation, 61(1),
42–49.
Gilbride, D., Stensrud, R., Vandergoot, D., & Golden, K. (2003). Identification of the characteristics of work
environment and employers open to hiring and accommodating people with disabilities. Rehabilitation
Counseling Bulletin, 46(3), 130–137.
Greenwood, R., & Johnson, V. A. (1987). Employer perspectives on workers with disabilities. Journal of
Rehabilitation, 53, 37–45.
Harris Interactive Inc. (2004). National Organization on Disability/Harris Survey of Americans with
Disabilities (Document Id. J20835A). New York: Harris Interactive.
Hernandez, B., Keys, C., & Balcazar, F. (2000). Employer attitudes toward workers with disabilities and their
ADA employment rights: A literature review. Journal of Rehabilitation, 66(4), 4–16.
Job Accommodation Network (1999). Accommodation cost/benefit data. http://www.jan.wvu.edu/media/
Stats/BenCosts0799.html. Accessed May 22, 2007
Johnson, V. A., Greenwood, R., & Schriner, K. F. (1988). Work performance and work personality:
Employer concerns about workers with disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 32, 50–57.
McFarlin, D. B., Song, J., & Sonntag, M. (1991). Integrating the disabled into the work force: A survey of
Fortune 500 company attitudes and practices. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4, 107–
123.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Oshkosh Area Workforce Development Center (2007). Studies related to the employment of individuals with
disabilities, (1948–2000). Oshkosh: Oshkosh Area Workforce Development Center [Electronic version]
(May 22).
Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Demographics and Statistics (2005). 2005
disability status reports. Ithaca: Cornell University.
Taylor, H. (2000). Conflicting trends in employment of people with disabilities 1986–2000. Rochester: Harris
Interactive [Electronic version] (October 7).
Unger, D. D. (2002). Employers' attitudes toward persons with disabilities in the workforce: Myths or
realities? Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 17(1), 2–10.
Wilgosh, L., & Skaret, D. (1987). Employer attitudes toward hiring individuals with disabilities: A review of
the recent literature. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 1, 89–98.