MODULE WEEK 3 LECTURE NOTES– EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION, ETHICS
AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
I. Introduction
Employment discrimination against persons with disabilities occurs when someone is
unfairly treated in the workplace due to a physical, cognitive or mental impairment. This type of
bias shows up as hiring biases, a lack of advancement opportunities, and being left out of the
workplace. McKinney and Swartz (2021) however point out that, barriers of employment
integration often stem from societal stereotypes that challenge the competence of disabled
people. Despite positive efforts towards inclusion, employers sometimes automatically correlate
disabilities with less productivity, limiting potential opportunities for credentialed individuals.
Such assumptions impose structural barriers to access the labor market. Ableist mind-sets can
create work environments that lead to both direct discrimination and deep exclusion. Such
environments can erode employees’ sense of belonging and contribute to social isolation
(Lindsay, Fuentes, Tomas, and Hsu, 2023). This cycle of challenges continues both as
individuals and organisations, ultimately leading to decreased job performance, loss in
productivity and increased attrition. They are such persistent problems that should be urging
comprehensive strategies that will seek to create work environments that are accepting for all
while also eradicating such stigmatized perceptions. This is equally important with the
requirement of giving opportunities that would be significant enough to help people with
disabilities become better within that work force.
Vaccinating employment discrimination against people with disabilities is essential for
creating a fair, inclusive society. Respecting the dignity of the human person and adapting to
people's different capabilities is an ethical requirement. Lindsay et al. (2023) note that
workplace discrimination affects disabled people with low self-esteem, high levels of stress and
reduced job satisfaction. These psychological impacts could lead to acute effects on mental
health. Low participation in the labour market also limits financial independence and social
integration, and perpetuates cycles of marginality. People with disabilities often encounter
rejections during the hiring process and these repeated rejections make them internalize the
biases that society holds against them, reducing their workplaces confidence (Bjørnshagen &
Ugreninov, 2021). This internalized stigma might also discourage them from applying for new
positions where they would be stigmatized and remain permanently excluded from the
workplace. One can tell ideas that value people for their own distinct skills and contributions.
Also, implementing inclusive hiring practices and workplace accommodations is in line with the
principles of fairness and social justice and it facilitates the equitable treatment of individuals,
which promotes a culture of mutual respect and understanding.
McKinney and Swartz (2021) maintain that discrimination against individuals with disabilities
raises challenges for ethical theories that are grounded in concepts of autonomy and fairness.
Buyl et al. (2022), assert that they emphasize that societal barriers are often overlooked,
embedding beliefs about disability as individual failures. Discrimination fails the deontological
principle of treating people as ends, not means. If exclusion is perceived to benefit the majority,
utilitarian frameworks may justify or even encourage exclusion, elucidating the inherent
tensions within ethical thought around collective well-being versus individual rights. Despite
existing legal protections against fatalist bias, Bjørnshagen and Ugreninov (2021) provide
empirical evidence of a hiring bias against wheelchair users. They found that many employers
hesitate to hire disabled candidates out of fear of lack of productivity and accommodation
expenses. It is especially the case with the ideal worker stereotype that Østerud (2023)
elaborates on that emphasizes any time, but also a certain physical constitution which is often
found used as a basis for exclusion of individuals with disabilities from competitive functioning.
These observations underscore the need for ethical vantage points accounting for both apparent
discrimination and systemic disadvantage, for just, respectful treatment, and the dismantling of
barriers to professional advancement (Buyl et al., 2022).
In response to a paragraph of evidence supporting the existence of widespread
employment discrimination against people with cognitive and emotional disabilities, the
reviewer would pick that apart and demand that I claim that this is an ethical violation. Our
understanding of mental health conditions is often simplistic, said Maté, leading to stigma and
exclusion. This misconception of competency can compound challenges for cognitively
impaired individuals in providing less advancement opportunities and more scrutiny of
performance. As Hunkenschroer and Kriebitz (2023, p. 56) explain, algorithmic bias in AI-based
recruitment systems leads to models trained on historical data that may inadvertently mirror
human bias. Such bias can disproportionately eliminate applicants with non-linear work
experiences or employment gaps with lower likelihood of getting such positions. Lindsay et al.
As White et al. (2023) also note, workplace cultures focusing on productivity and efficiency
marginalize those with cognitive or emotional disabilities and make career advancement more
challenging. Both the technological aspects and the human elements must be taken into account
in ethical recruitment. Neurodiversity empowers organizations to create spaces similar to this as
people can bring value through their unique round peg to every square hole thinking. This open-
mindedness often results in improved performance and more sustainable navigation.
II. Disability Ethics: Theoretical Foundations
Disability discrimination brings ethical issues that challenge accepted ideas about justice
and equality. According to Whitters (2024), discrimination happens when people are a denied a
reasonable chance to succeed on the basis of traits that have no bearing on their capabilities. This
is the form of bias which reflects societal attitudes in which disability leads to perceived
diminished competence, which when acting alone creates barriers to inclusion. Discrimination is
usually rooted in ableism and other systemic factors (Withers, 2024). These biases occur in the
hiring process, the workplace, and in career advancement creating barriers to opportunities for
disabled individuals. Due to their different backgrounds and experiences, inclusive practices
acknowledge their differing abilities (Jammaers, 2023), and organizational ethics of care seeks to
mitigate these obstacles. These responses include accommodation, which can provoke resistance
as stakeholders see this as a threat to their efficiency or profitability. There is a need to push
back on such perceptions, and an ethical approach calls for providing spaces in which people are
not defined by their symptoms or differences. This perspective highlights the need for the
introduction of ethical frameworks which would guide respect, equity, and diversity in the work
environment (Whitters, 2024).
Deontology is based on Kant’s philosophy, which states that every human person, with
all his limitations, possesses some inalienable good. Discrimination refers to the violation of the
ethical principle of treating all people as ends in themselves, which results in the decline of their
autonomy and self-worth (Withers, 2024). This perspective affirmatively enhances our ethical
obligation to create meaningfully inclusive spaces that respect the rights of those whose bodies
challenge what we view as a normative state. Utilitarianism, in contrast, analyzes an action based
on its results, with a goal of maximizing happiness. At some stage the costs of inclusion will
outweigh the benefits, and as such whilst this approach can rationalise adjustments that facilitate
overall productivity, they are also likely to lead to exclusion. As Steiner (2021) cautions,
utilitarian reasoning becomes particularly salient on a systemic level, which heightens the risk of
omitting those individuals who may not constitute a significantly visible presence. It shows the
difficulty in upholding both accuracy and efficiency, that the ethical tensions are they should
balance individual rights and societal interests against one another, never settling for the lowest
common denominator of erosion of rights in the interim. The dual perspective not only allows
organizations to develop ethical policies that promote inclusion in work, but it still enables
productivity and operational efficiency.
Virtue ethics is another complementary approach to disability discrimination, in that it
emphasizes character and moral development. Based on Aristotle’s philosophy, this framework
emphasizes the development of virtues like compassion, empathy, and fairness. Gillies (2024)
asserts that ethics is the recognition of the inherent value of every individual, and the promotion
of relationships based on mutual respect. When it comes to employment, this outlook pushes
employers to make sure they see disabled people as asset in innovation whose distinct insight
can strengthen the workplace. According to Pellicano and Heyworth (2023), to broaden
participation, an inclusive environment must be created by developing humanist virtues that
cultivate understanding and acceptance of diverse abilities. Such an approach combats
stereotypes linked to disability as the opposite of competence, encouraging a change in society
attitudes that focuses on gifts rather than deficits. By prioritizing compassion and empathy,
organizations create cultures where individual well-being and productivity are acknowledged
and supported. This emphasis is advantageous for caregivers and for those responsible for
preserving health in the organization. The moral imperative for this cultural shift is grounded in
virtue ethics. It promotes practices that are more than compliance with the law, developing
settings in which all identities are welcomed and empowered to prosper.
The social model of disability is a very important frame for thinking through the ethics
of discrimination. While medical models emphasize individual impairments, social models
emphasize the barriers present in society that restrict opportunities for disabled people. As
Withers (2024) suggests, disability does not reside within the individual; rather, it is a
consequence of social and attitudinal barriers that limit participation. That viewpoint removes
the focus from “fixing” people to removing barriers to full inclusion. Era (2024) emphasizes the
need tackle both physical and social barriers, within restricted workplaces, prejudiced hiring
processes, and negative stereotypes. It argues that society should be structured to account for the
wide range of human abilities, values what all bodies can offer (often implicitly valued), and
encourages autonomy and full participation in all aspects of society, which approaches equality.
According to Jammaers (2023), this thus resonates with organizational ethics of care, as they put
an emphasis on empathy and respect in professional relationships. The social model not only
requires structural adjustment but a cultural transformation that values diversity as an asset.
Acknowledging the work of disabled people and establishing access, organizations can help
create a more equitable society.
Similarly, cognitive and emotional disabilities raise ethical challenges that must be
considered with care and accommodated. These disorders are often stigmatized and
misunderstood, as Gabor Mate points out, these are conditions of exclusion. These
misconceptions may cause a barrier for individuals with cognitive impairments as it can lead to
doubts about their abilities for the professional advancement that is exactly what they need. Of
course, we can try as much as we can to find out and make decisions about what will bring about
greater cognitive diversity in what we do, and that would call into play Pellicano and Heyworth
(2023), who have argued, following Gilbert (2006), that the cognitions of the well-being and
flourishing of individuals have to be recognized. Ethics in our work must be both structural and
attitudinal in nature; the indictment must be as much about how we value individuals for their
strengths as it is about how we judge them for their shortcomings. As Steiner points out (2021),
establishing environments that are conducive to learning and productivity for people with a
variety of cognitive and emotional needs is essential for personal growth and workplace
effectiveness. Compassion and Empathy Lead to a Culture that Knows Productivity Comes from
Well-Being. This focus is beneficial to both caregivers and people who keep the organization as
a whole healthy. This cultural shift would best be grounded in virtue ethics. It calls for practices
that transcends legal compliance and engenders space where everyone and everything is
celebrated and has the opportunity to flourish.
Disability is often woven through mental health trauma and challenges, and associated
struggles. According to Gillies (2024), there is a unique dual stigma that individuals with mental
health conditions face that is predicated upon a lack of understanding around what these people
are experiencing as well as the invisibility of their struggles. This intersection may further induce
feelings of isolation, a barrier to professional progress and the creation of glass ceilings." Era
(2024) foregrounds the varied experiences of people whose disabilities also entail mental health
challenges, advocating for policies that reflect both. Fostering a culture of openness and support,
in addition to structural accommodations, is important (Jammaers, 2023). This means
challenging along-held assumptions of people living with poor mental health as unreliable or
ineffective, and ensuring spaces in which people can ask for help without fear of stigma. It
means that organizations can build environments for inclusion, well-being, and performance by
addressing the needs of those who move across identities.
The presence of social stigma continues to act as an obstacle to the full participation of
disabled people in society, affecting both public attitudes and workplace environments.
According to Withers (2024), stigma is a product of cultural concepts that equate disability with
weakness or reliance, and negative stereotypes reinforce stigma and create barriers to progress.
This stigma becomes internalized, however, making individuals disbelieve their capabilities and
hold them back (Gillies, 2024). Thus, Jammaers (2023) explains that despite the action of
personal conspiracy walking hand in hand with a positive attitude, in the fight against stigma to
be effective, cultural and structural changes (education and awareness strategies that present a
proper understanding of disability) must be implemented. Focusing on the accomplishments and
contributions of disabled people will help to change public attitudes and reduce the social
factors that impact on inclusion. It is supported by ethical approaches that prioritize someone's
merit, understanding and fairness, leading to environments who someone will be seen through
their strength without his or her disabilities. Employers take on many positive ethical obligations
to combat stigma through approaches that will create an environment where personal growth
leads to professional growth.
Striking the right balance between productivity and inclusion, a moral quandary, calls for
careful consideration of individual needs versus organizational goals. Valuing productivity over
inclusion violates the fairness ideal of ethics, because it a priori renders imaginary those for
whom exemptions must be made in order to aid their success (Withers, 2024). Moreover,
according to Jammaers (2023), the resistance towards inclusion is often rooted in
misunderstanding the effect of accommodations on productivity, where stakeholders are worried
about increased expenses or decreasing performance. Research shows that outcome improves
with diversity, inclusion, and being anti-fragile. For instance, one such author Steiner (2021)
argues that flexible working arrangements are critical to maintaining diversity of thought, skills,
and experience by enabling individuals to makes contributions in ways that make most sense to
them. That, as noted, not only means structural changes but also a cultural one which sees
diversity as a source of strength. Organizations can prioritize ethical principles such as respect
and fairness by balancing productivity and inclusion to create environments that foster both
individual well-being and collective success.
III. The Nature and Impact of Employment Discrimination
Direct discrimination in recruitment and promotion occurs if persons with disabilities are
simply not given the opportunity due to their condition. This may limit the career progression
and income potential of qualified candidates because they are discounted by employers due to
assumptions about their capabilities (Hirsh, 2014). Negative stereotypes enhance biased
decisions, maintaining obstacles to professionalism growth (Nier & Gaertner, 2012). Although
anti-discrimination laws exist, covert forms of prejudice continue to flourish and affect equal
access to employment (Sullivan, 2012). Moreover, discriminatory hiring practices not only lack
ethical principles, but also prevent organizations from obtaining diverse talent. Upward mobility
is further limited by biased promotion decisions that lower long-term job satisfaction and
financial security (Bell et al., 2013). Limited career progression can negatively affect an
individual’s sense of purpose and self-worth. When skilled employees are held back solely
because of their disability, it dwells on workplace morale and productivity. Transparent
processes are needed for hiring to address direct discrimination and accountability measures to
ensure fair treatment. Employers need to judge applicants through skills, not through forms of
biases. Encouraging inclusivity improves the cultural environment of an organization, which can
also help foster innovation and collaboration. As a result of identifying and rectifying direct
discrimination, organisations can encourage a more fair and equitable workplace where
everybody can flourish.
Indirect discrimination in recruitment and promotion occurs when policies which appear
neutral impact disproportionately on those who have a disability. Strict job descriptions with no
focus on the available critical tasks can also prevent good candidates with mobility issues from
being recruited (Roberts, 2015). Standardized testing approaches can also overlook cognitive
variations, serving as a stumbling block (Reskin, 2018). Unintentionally, these practices
contribute to systemic inequalities that deny access to career opportunities (Chao & Nguyen,
2013). Traditional performance metrics used by workplace cultures that value traditional
performance metrics frequently leave the unique strengths of employees with disabilities out of
consideration. For instance, fast and efficient hiring processes may unknowingly discriminate
against people who need reasonable adjustments (Nier & Gaertner, 2012). Likewise, promotion
metrics that emphasize interpersonal interactions may exclude employees with speech or hearing
deficits (Hirsh, 2014). A response to indirect discrimination would be to scrutinize hiring and
promotion processes to ensure they are accessible and adaptable.Action. Practices that
appreciate various skills should be implemented by employers, enabling a culture where
performance is measured based on talent instead of how well something fits a particular mold.
By recognizing and addressing indirect obstacles, organizations can build pathways to
advancement that are more equitable.
When it comes to cognitive disabilities, workplace bias often springs from
misunderstandings of the person’s autonomy and emotional intelligence. Employees with
conditions like autism, ADHD, or dyslexia (2) may be seen as less competent, reducing their
potential for career advancement (Bell et al., 2013). This bias exists in hiring, making personnel
decisions, and day-to-day interactions, reinforcing societal stigmas (Roberts, 2015). Exclusion
from collaborative projects and leadership roles resulting from negative stereotypes limits
professional development (Hirsh, 2014). Coloring outside the lines Workplace settings that value
uniformity is not always equipped for cognitive diversity either. For instance, straight-laced
performance measures and uniform methods of communication can be severely challenging for
neurodiverse people (Reskin, 2018). Cognitive disabilities may present certain behaviors to co-
workers and superiors that may be misinterpreted, which could lead to incorrect judgments of
both competency and reliability (Nier & Gaertner, 2012). It means practicing inclusivity within
our organizations and considering and valuing different perspectives or learning styles. Offering
support that is tailored to the individual, including flexible work hours and alternate forms of
interaction can boost productivity and job satisfaction. According to Roberts (2015), by
debunking myths and fostering awareness, organizations can establish spaces where people with
cognitive disabilities are appreciated for their unique skills and contributions.
Employment bias against physical disabilities is common in hiring and day-to-day
contact. People with mobility impairments or chronic health conditions may be presumed by
employers to be less able to meet the demands of a job (Hirsh, 2014). These assumptions restrict
access to employment and career advancement opportunities, perpetuating systemic inequalities
(Nier & Gaertner, 2012). Physical barriers in the workplace--inaccessible tools and equipment,
also inhibit participation (Roberts, 2015). That being said, even when people are hired, they can
often be excluded from social activities and networking events, preventing growth in their
careers. My colleagues’ misconceptions about physical disabilities have led to social exclusion
and less collaboration at work. To work around physical bias, there is need to have accessible
work environments. Employers must ensure facilities, technology and job duties are accessible
to people with mobility limitations. As per Roberts (2015), this increased awareness and
empathy in the workplace can help mitigate stigma and encourage a more inclusive approach.
One can pave the way towards equal access to learning opportunities and create environments
where people with physical disabilities can participate in full measure in organizations by
making accessibility a priority and not making assumptions.
Through the perpetuation of systemic barriers and inaccessible work environments,
discrimination is enabled to continue by making it difficult - if not impossible - for individuals to
do their jobs. Physical infrastructure (e.g., presence of stairs without elevators, narrow hallways)
can obstruct the accessibility to routine places (Bell et al., 2013). Likewise, digital platforms that
do not support assistive technologies disenfranchise visually- or auditory-impaired employees
(Roberts, 2015). Lack of reasonable accommodation from workplace policies aggravates these
barriers posing challenges for participation and career growth (Chao & Nguyen, 2013). Even
work schedules do not allow for flexibility, although in many cases, a lack of flexibility such as
the need to consider long-term medical treatments (Reskin, 2018) or accommodate differently-
abled workflow. Cultures of uniformity, over flexibility, in organizations can dissuade
employees from reaching out for help when they need it. Need for data to do robust accessibility
audits and to architect solutions in a way to eliminate systemic barriers. Adaptive technologies
and flexible policies designing inclusive physical and digital spaces allows people to carry out
their work unencumbered. Even more so, this helps in not just creating a fair workplace but an
efficient one, as any systemic pressure such as bias only hurt our productivity and well-being so
eliminating such entrenched atmosphere keeps up our efficiency.
Dr. Mate looks at workplace exclusion’s psychological and emotional toll from a
personal perspective, and how devastating that discrimination on the mind. Chronic
discrimination and social alienation cause anxiety, depression, and loss of self-esteem (Petrean,
2019). People who are targets of prejudice may come to internalize devalued opinions, leading
to less confidence and motivation (Hirsh, 2014). Barriers in workplaces that exclude people with
disabilities further perpetuate alienation and stress (Nier & Gaertner, 2012). Stigma is often a
barrier to employees reporting their conditions, depriving them of access to the support they
need. Furthermore, limited participation in professional circles and training opportunities may
slow professional advancement, reinforcing feelings of unworthy. Long-term stress from
discrimination can lead to cognitive and physical health problems that limit job performance.
Talking with other people about how to deal with the emotional consequences of not being
included usually require creating inclusive environment that made individuals think they are
celebrated and highly esteemed. Encourages open communication and offer mental health
support resources to reduce the psychological effects of discrimination. Establishing inclusive
workplaces that emphasize empathy and understanding will not only benefit employee well-
being but also bolster overall productivity within organizations.
Wage gaps and the availability of career prospects for people with disabilities have very
real ethical implications. But unequal compensation also damages financial autonomy and
exposes wider societal inequalities (Kessler, 2016). Pay discrepancies are often rooted in
assumptions about productivity and competence, which themselves create and perpetuate
economic inequality (Roberts, 2015). The lack of access to high-paying positions also limits
people’s ability to achieve financial independence and career satisfaction (Bell et al., 2013). The
long-term social and economic inequalities experienced by persons with disabilities, however,
come largely as a result of systemic barriers to career advancement. These barriers are major
drivers of inequality and serve as a barrier maintaining cycles of poverty and social exclusion
(Reskin, 2018). Paid according to their skills and contributions and not their physiological or
cognitive traits. Such disparities can be mitigated if employers are transparent about their salary
and promotion structures. It is important to establish ladders into career paths and leadership
roles so that individuals with disabilities can reach their fullest potential. Organizations that take
these steps will not only fulfill a higher ethical obligation to promote social justice and equity,
but they will also create an environment for high performance that can sustain the needs of their
business into the future.
IV. Laws and Ethics for Rights of Persons with Disabilities
History of Disability Rights Laws Most disability rights laws, such as the Americans with
Disabilities Act, grew out of legislation designed to protect individuals from discrimination
while ensuring equal access to opportunities. The cornerstone Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) of 1990 in the United States requires reasonable accommodations and prohibits
discrimination in employment, public services, and private enterprises (Degener, 2016; Stein,
2017). On an international scale, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (CRPD) outlines a global structure that has emphasized autonomy, dignity, and full
participation in society since its ratification in 2006 (Durham, Brolan, & Mukandi, 2014;
Reinders, 2017). These legal frameworks seek to address past marginalization through the
establishment of binding norms that address both direct and indirect discrimination. But no
amount of legislation can dismantle the countless systemic barriers embedded in social attitudes
and institutional practices. The legal recourse and regulatory oversight serve as compliance
mechanisms, giving those rights teeth (Gill, 2019). National and international regulations create
a legal infrastructure, but uneven enforcement and cultural factors shape how much individuals
come to enjoy such benefits in practice. The development of disability rights laws demonstrates
a commitment to equity, but ongoing style inequities suggests an urgent need for effective
intelligent advocacy and policy reform.
The ethical bases for the legal protections against discrimination in disability rest on
principles of justice, autonomy and human dignity. Justice demands fair opportunities for people
with disabilities so that they are not prevented from being included in societal activities
(Reinders, 2017; Bennett & Hannah, 2022). Autonomy affirms the right of people to make
choices about their own lives free from unwarranted interference, thus reinforcing respect for
human agency (Degener, 2016). Human dignity, as a moral imperative, acknowledges the
intrinsic worth of all persons, regardless of their social status and demands that they be treated
equally in all social relations (Good, 2020). Such legal frameworks, based on these ethical
principles, work to rectify systemic inequities through requirements for inclusive practices and
prohibitions against discriminatory behaviors. However, the implementation of these principles
differs between cultures and economic conditions (Durham, Brolan, & Mukandi, 2014). Ethics
is much more than legal compliance because it means a societal mindset that embraces the
disability community and promotes its viability as a habitat. Enforcing these moral bedrocks
means both institutional accountability and collective pushback, to put some wind in the sails of
positive change where legal protections become lived realities.
Since organizations often treat disability rights as mere compliance with legal
requirements, there can be a tension between compliance (i.e., following regulations) and
genuine inclusion. Although mandatory compliance with legislation ensures a minimum level of
protection, it does not take private needs of persons with disabilities into account (Gill, 2019;
Reinders, 2017). Being a part of something is not the same as being included. For instance,
compliance with regulations strengthens a campus's legal obligations through accessible
facilities, adaptive technologies, etc., but the commitment to creating a culture of respect and
belonging goes beyond more compliance (Bennett & Hannah, 2022). The difference between
compliance and inclusion lies in ethical considerations surrounding the intentions behind
organizational actions. Designing solely to avoid getting sued does not usually have the level of
empathy and understanding necessary to support motivated participation in things like
communication with us. Moreover, overly mechanical interpretations of legal thresholds can
occasionally impede the adoption of creative solutions to accessibility (Stein, 2017). Those
organizations that develop a real commitment to continuous improvement with open dialogue
with people with disabilities will achieve true inclusion, rather than seeing inclusion as a check
box exercise to be completed. As workplaces grow more diverse, that same technique may build
social cohesion by challenging stereotypes and softening stigma.
Employers have moral duties that go beyond the minimum established by disability
rights laws. However, such obligations arise from ethical principles of fairness, respect, and
social responsibility (Degener, 2016; Good, 2020). It is only fair that people with disabilities
have the same opportunity to work, upskill, and grow their careers. Respect acknowledges the
individual differences of the employee, ensuring an inclusive workplace culture that appreciates
diverse views (Bennett & Hannah, 2022). Social responsibility means that organizations are
conscious of the impact of their practices on their employees or the community as a whole. Such
a pledge engenders increased accessibility both within internal functions and outside
interactions. This might include mentorship initiatives or leadership programs to empower
persons with disabilities. According to Reinders (2017), say that is where employer organizations
can come in, incentivizing the disability rights organization to work together to promote policies
that reduce barriers. Ethical leaders understand the difference between mandatory compliance
and voluntary positive conflict, and they appreciate the other person, their background, and they
help the other person to be their best. The staff's prosperity and resolution are the roots of
commemorating the purpose of disablement work policy and endowing prospective disabled
workers to convert their skills into success.
This challenge is ethical in nature, it is about how to balance fairness with accountability
as well as privacy in enforcing the anti-discrimination policies. It is important for clarity of
procedures for reporting and addressing discrimination to be in place, so people feel safe and
supported to seek redress of discrimination (Gill, 2019). Durham, Brolan, and Mukandi (2014)
add that protecting the integrity of investigative processes is vital to maintaining trust and
accountability in journalism. However, it can be fraught with complexity, particularly in the
context of ensuring that complainants and respondents have due process rights (Stein, 2017).
Additionally, ethical enforcements would entail the challenges of judging implicit bias in
decision-making that have their basis in objective experience rather than subjective account
(Reinders, 2017). Management, and organizations, need to train themselves adequately and right
from top to bottom with disability awareness, rights, etc. Additionally, continuous monitoring
and evaluation of anti-discrimination policies should be able to catch systemic issues so that
corrections can be made. However, that would be only a part of the issue, as effective ethical
enforcement goes beyond checking specific cases of discrimination and instead needs to develop
a group culture of accountability and process-rending.
While progress has been made through the work of disability rights organizations and the
passage of various disability rights laws, these legal frameworks have specific limits, which
undermine their efficacy. A major limitation is that many of the legal protections are reactive,
providing redress to people who have been discriminated against but putting less emphasis on
prevention (Degener, 2016; Bennett & Hannah, 2022). If individuals themselves have to seek
enforcement, they may face considerable emotional and financial hurdles to do so. Moreover,
legal definitions of disability can be restrictive, pushing outside the boundaries of those with one
or many conditions that are not of such characteristics (Stein, 2017). Data restrictions and
variability in enforcement across jurisdictions undermines the consistency and reliability of legal
protections (Gill, 2019). Disabled persons are special people who suffer a lot when dealing with
legal processes since they take longer time to be solved while there is poor representation for
their cases. It is difficult and impossible to eliminate discrimination through legislation since the
prejudices are derived from social discrimination and cultural prejudices. The advancement in
the frameworks of disability rights calls for prevention mechanisms to be put in place so as to
curtail discrimination. Stein (2017) add that they include raising the public profile of such issues
and creating environments in teaching and learning contexts that will facilitate such perceptions
and discussions. Organizations and institutions should also be encouraged to go extra length in
practicing the best practices.
IV. The Ethical Responsibilities of Employers and Society
Good recruitment processes ensure that everyone, including people with disabilities, have
equal opportunities to find employment. Intentionally accessible recruitment practices help
mitigate the biases that contribute to the exclusion of disabled candidates. According to Valecha
(2022), ethical human resource management is therefore simply defined as designing recruitment
strategies that are not based on physical or cognitive differences but rather candidate skills and
qualifications. It means removing barriers like job postings that are not universally accessible
and online application systems that do not work with assistive technologies. Bocean, Nicolescu,
Cazacu, and Dumitriu (2022) assert that accessibility in recruitment processes leads to improved
well-being of employees and promotes diversity and inclusion. My source for this piece is Colin
Wright, the chief talent officer at COFES, who also notes that the lack of specificity in job
descriptiveness is a way to eliminate barriers for people with disabilities. Valecha (2022) assert
that it demonstrates that separating between core competency and desirable skills assists the
potential job-seekers to evaluate their fitness for a certain position. Thus, flexibility in the role
description extended people to apply and seek for those positions which actually can be of
interest for them. Coupled with this, offering applications in alternative formats and making
recruitment platforms screen-reader accessible serve as indicative examples of inclusive practice.
Ethically-obtained recruitment practices are not only in adherence with legal guidelines but also
show how an organization builds its impetus towards social responsibility. Employers who build
processes that promote diverse candidates strengthen more innovative workforces and resilient
tasks groups at the same time as additionally posting key targets for society, equality, and
fairness.
Inclusive hiring processes are critical to addressing employment discrimination against
individuals with disabilities. You are funneled with data until October 2023. The research
findings by Seing, MacEachen, Ekberg, and Ståhl (2015) underline the significance of nullifying
prejudices while conducting interviews and assessments by scrutinizing candidates' capabilities
and how proportionately they all add to the organization's success. Using a structured interview
with a set of standard questions can help reduce subjective judgments and ensure a fair and
consistent process. Details of how organizations should create processes for hiring that reflect
organizational commitments to equality and respect for individual differences has been explored
before (Hsieh, 2017). This includes educating hiring managers to be aware of their own biases
and to try to avoid them during the hiring process, as well as reorienting decisions based on
objective, relevant criteria. Additionally, things like virtual interviews or elongating time for
cognitive assessments are much better accommodates for more diverse needs. It is as a form of
showing the applicants that they are valued by making good communication possible, especially
regarding the performance and time taken during the hiring process. Ethical hiring practices also
therefore support the development of workplace culture in diverse organizations. It creates
people belonging, respect, and organizational culture, and ensures that all employees in an
organization are in harmony with organizational objectives and ethos.
Reasonable accommodation, by law, are any adjustments that enable a person with a
disability to perform their job that they could not otherwise do without this accommodation,
based at the individual’s needs freely and openly shared. Supports like assistive technologies,
adaptable workspaces, and flexible schedules enable productivity and mental health.
Accommodating diverse needs is consistent with principles of fairness and corporate
responsibility according to Enderle, Almond and Argandoña (2012). To capitalize on the talents
and potential of its disabled workforce, it needs to tailor workplace environments to meet
individual needs. According to Croitor (2014), being ethical goes far beyond legal obligations,
and requires employers to create conditions under which everyone can thrive. Accommodations
benefit both the employee and organization alike, with studies showing that inclusive
workplaces tend to have higher levels of engagement and retention. Supporting employees’
diverse needs encourages overall morale and productivity over the long term, which can
ultimately benefit organizations (Ackers, Redman, & Wilkinson, 2013). Workplaces should
foster an environment where workers can make requests based on mental health needs without
one fearing stigmatization or discrimination by an employed expert. Fostering more reasonable
accommodation opens the door not only to meet more of their ethical obligations, but also to
more vibrant and creative workforces.
Training and awareness is vital in creating an inclusive workplace culture which
addresses unconscious bias. Unconscious biases are automatic judgments driven by social
stereotypes that can affect hiring decisions, performance evaluations, and workplace
interactions. Bolton and Laaser (2013) further explains the need for awareness in addressing
these biases, as failing to do so may result in unfair treatment of individuals with disabilities.
Implementing training initiatives that raise employee awareness about the effects of implicit bias
and provide tips for reducing its influence may help employers build workplaces that are more
equitable. According to Gotterbarn (2012), raising awareness of unconscious bias is a practice
that overlaps with higher level ethics of respect and fairness and reminding us that we must treat
everyone with respect and dignity. Interactive workshops that invite employees to examine their
assumptions and question stereotypes can promote empathy and social awareness. Bolten and
Laaser (2013) add that positive role models and success stories can change the way society views
disability and those who have it, presenting them as people who can be great contributors to
their society. By considering unconscious bias, organizations can create spaces where all
employees feel valued and supported and thus add to personal and collective performance.
It has a broader moral obligation to society at large which is promoting fairness and
rights for the disabled people. To create inclusive communities, we need to challenge societal
views on disability as limitation and dependency. According to Hsieh (2017), businesses can
have a distinct influence on social perception by demonstrating that people with disabilities can
provide contributions to the workplace. Through fostering acceptance in the workplace,
businesses can break down perceptions, inspiring acceptance. Bocean et al. (2022) argue that
disabled inclusion and the supports that enable it not only lead to greater social cohesion but also
help to REDUCE economic inequality and improve overall well-being in society. Public
awareness campaigns highlighting these accomplishments can help counter such
misconceptions, and also a culture of disrespect and lack of empathy directed towards people
with disabilities. In addition, education programs that teach younger generations about disability
and inclusion could inspire more empathetic citizens in the future. Such societies will nurture an
atmosphere where the disabled are valued for their personal ability and potential. This mutual
commitment to inclusion is grounded in two basic ethical principles of justice, equity and social
responsibility.
VI. Practical Solutions and Ethical Best Practices
Embracing people with disabilities in the workplace starts with building inclusive
cultures. Organizations need to incorporate inclusivity as part of their values and operational
practices with such diligence that they ensure much beyond legal compliance (Leidner &
Plachouras, 2017; McMenemy, Poulter, & Burton, 2014). This primary role of executives and
managers in determining and establishing a workplace culture that is inclusive is essential,
because they should model inclusive behavior, ensuring that accessibility is made a priority
(Parsons, 2016). (Black, 2015)Employee training programs should emphasize disability
awareness and highlight respectful communication and the purpose of accommodations. Creating
employee resource groups for people with disabilities can create a space where they can share
their stories while also push for change and build community (Peute et al., 2020). In order to
foster open conversations, inclusive workplaces create safe spaces where employees are
encouraged to talk openly about their needs and wants without the fear of stigma (Gupta, 2017).
Both workplace policies are regularly assessed, ensuring barriers to participation are promoted
and removed. It is common practice to review both workplace policies frequently in order to
determine whether there are any barriers that hinder the employees from participating. Promoting
ethical values and culture that are inclusive leads to the formation of a culture of equity within an
organization to assist employees with a disability as well as improve the labor force.
Flexible work options support access and employee wellbeing by catering to different needs.
The opportunity to work remotely enables employees with mobility impairments or chronic
health conditions to engage in the workforce productively and without facing physical obstacles
(Parsons, 2016; Peute et al., 2020). Many workers cite the freedom of flexible scheduling, which
allows individuals to accommodate medical appointments, therapy sessions, or varying energy
levels, all without compromising productivity (Leidner & Plachouras, 2017). In addition, job
sharing arrangements offer extra support for employees, enabling them to share responsibilities
in ways that suit their skills (Gupta, 2017). Employers should make it clear what these policies
are so that all employees are aware of their options and feel comfortable requesting
accommodations without fear of retaliation. Black (2015) conclude that creating a well-
structured flexible work model does not only accommodate employees with disabilities, but it
also helps in boosting job satisfaction, reducing burnout, and increasing retention rates.
Adaptive technologies can be utilized in creating a work division where employees with
disabilities can complete their tasks independently and effectively. Essential tools to support
digital and physical accessibility in workspaces include screen readers, voice recognition
software, and ergonomic workstations (Nelles et al., 2017; Peute et al., 2020). Employers need
to proactively adopt these technologies and train staff on their effective use (Leidner &
Plachouras, 2017). In order to keep up with advancement, regular assessment is to be done to
identify changing technological needs and implement right solutions. Workplace software and
tools should be developed following inclusive design principles, which address the variety in
abilities available in the workforce, rather than needing retroactive adjustment (McMenemy,
Poulter, & Burton, 2014). Working with technology providers, disability advocacy groups to
implement organization best practices which include ethical approaches as well as equitable
access. Adaptive technologies not just enable independence for employees with disabilities, but
the adaptive mindset promotes innovation by creating an environment where diverse
perspectives engage in creative problem-solving.
So ensuring that those differences do not result in unfair assessments, you need to
modify traditional assessment methods to accommodate varied abilities and workplace
modifications. Employees with disabilities often display unique contributions and encounter
unique challenges that standard evaluation metrics fail to take into account (Leidner &
Plachouras, 2017). Applying a performance review framework focused on an individual’s
strengths and measuring success through goal performance and adaptable criteria. It is
imperative that managers are trained to identify and reduce bias that can unknowingly factor
into performance evaluations (Parsons, 2016). A good communication between the employees
and supervisors about reasonable accommodations would help ensure that any evaluation
processes are fair (Peute et al., 2020). Self-assessments and peer feedback give insight into an
employee’s contributions beyond strict productivity metrics. As per Black (2015), not only do
fair and transparent evaluation practices foster ethical behavior, but they also promote employee
retention and job satisfaction as people know that they will receive appropriate recognition for
success.
Removing the structural barriers that keep employees with disabilities from advancing in
their careers is a major step in promoting career advancement opportunities. Many of the
traditional promotion pathways do not consider accessibility needs putting applicants at a
disadvantage (Gupta, 2017). Mentorship and sponsorship programs to bridge employees with
disabilities with senior leaders for guidance and advocacy should be instituted. Leadership
training programs need to promote inclusion of people with disabilities, recruit people with
disabilities for training and networking, and provide executive coaching that is tailored to the
needs of this group of workers (McMenemy, Poulter, & Burton, 2014). Internal policies should
clearly define criteria for equitable advancement to eliminate biases from influencing promotion
(Leidner & Plachouras, 2017). Diversity framework made a legal obligation to provide
accommodations during professional development programs so all employees can have access to
career growth (Black, 2015). It is imperative that organizations do not wait until career
development initiatives are allowed, but rather act in such a way through ethical business
practices that employees with disabilities have the opportunity to pursue leadership roles and
play a role in decisions made throughout an organization.
How can ethical models of leadership and compassion among what employees do help to
create a fairer and more supportive workplace? Disability inclusion must be embedded in
leaders' organizational values. Leaders must promote and challenge discriminatory attitudes and
practices (Parsons, 2016; Peute et al., 2020). Ethical leadership ensures you make decisions that
drive for fairness, accessibility and social responsibility and this ensures that people with
disabilities are supported to not just exist but thrive (Leidner & Plachouras, 2017). Such
workplace training in empathy-building helps employees recognize and understand their
colleagues with disabilities (Gupta, 2017). According to the data, encouraging continuous
education and open participation on topics like disability inclusion is essential in breaking down
stereotypes and creating an environment of valuing all employees (McMenemy, Poulter, &
Burton, 2014). Leaders should be committed to ethical business, by continually doing the right
thing and also ensuring that workplace standards and company culture are raised in a manner
that makes diversity and inclusion truly meaningful.
VII. Conclusion
One of the courses of action one can take to make a since of this article on employment
discrimination against people with disabilities is to come up with ethical frameworks.
Deontological, utilitarian, and virtue ethics shows that one should value an individual for their
unique ability, instead of assessing their value based on physical and cognitive differences.
Under the social model of disability, the most effective method for addressing disability is
through the breaking down of barriers and a focus from individual impairments to societal
disabilities. Neurodiversity can be a complex concept, but Gabor Mate's insights about making
space for cognitive and emotional disabilities are something that we should adapt to.
Bjørnshagen and Ugreninov provide empirical details that show biases against disabled are
persistent, especially in the hiring process. Ethical recruiting and hiring practices guarantee that
candidates are assessed according to their talents, and reasonable accommodations allow for
individuals to carry out their responsibilities. Unconscious bias can be countered through training
and awareness, allowing inclusive workplace cultures. It is up to employers and society to
provide such environments where the talents and perspectives of those with disabilities can be
used without the worry of discrimination. These ethical principles are not just about individual
achievement; they embody larger social justice goals, such as ensuring that everyone has an
equal chance to succeed, and overcoming the prejudices that often serve as barriers to
advancement.
Workplaces must also promote dignity, respect and equality to create environments
within which people with disabilities can prosper. Parsons (2016) said that justice ethics stress
the importance of recognizing the inherent value of each individual, challenging the societal
belief that links disability with lacking something. By making such reasonable accommodation
to a diversity in need we are respecting the diversity and allowing them to bring their skills over
diverse activities without barriers. Such training and raisin ownership - two key components of
racial literacy - brings conscious awareness to unconscious bias, an essential first step in
removing stereotypes that are lowering people confidence and constraining their professional
scope. Applicants are put through a transparent process where they are assessed on their skills
alone by adopting inclusive methods to recruit and hire. When people belong they are healthier
themselves and organizations can flourish! Outside of legal enforcement, there is a moral duty to
supply accommodations, a duty that can only be informed by theocratic principles, humanity and
a concern for social responsibility. When organizations acknowledge every employee, they are
working towards building an environment for everyone to succeed equally. Not only does this
help people with disabilities, but matters of the workplace environment as a whole too. It has a
role of encouraging teamwork, and collaboration, and the momentum to help the organization
thrive.
Inclusive employment practices not only provide people with opportunities but also
contribute to building strong organizations and a cohesive society. Having a variety of
information available from members of diverse teams have brought new perspectives that will
lead to creativity and innovation. When employees feel valued and supported, they are more
engaged, productive, and less likely to leave their companies. Nelle et al. (2017) say by offering
reasonable accommodations, we create an environment for individuals to thrive and deliver their
unique talents to the best of their ability. Encouraging awareness of disability issues and
reducing unconscious bias can aid in building more sensitive and collaborative culture within
the workplace. Also, inclusive hiring practices increase the talent pool available to organizations,
providing them access to a wider array of talents and viewpoints. Furthermore, investing in
individuals with disabilities also leads to higher retention and lower turnover, which reduces
recruitment and training costs. As a community, encouraging equal employment opportunities
contributes to financial equality, benefiting social stability and overall life quality. As per Puete
(2020), promoting inclusive practices and challenging stereotypes can redefine society's view of
disability and spark greater acceptance and awareness. As organizations and society realize the
long-term benefits of such inclusive practices, we will be able to create an environment that
enables every individual to thrive and contributes to the growth and progress of society as a
whole.
Inclusive workplaces tend to thrive when based on fairness, respect, and empathy.
Accessibility needs to be top-of-mind for all employers, who should be continuously reviewing
their recruitment, hiring and accommodation processes. This entails delivering unconscious bias
training, encouraging understanding around the different lived experiences of individuals with
disabilities, and creating environments where diversity is appreciated and celebrated.
McMenemy, Poulter and Burton (2014) say organizations are working together to address
systemic barriers and create solutions that foster professional growth in a fair manner for both
employers and employees. Therefore, at the societal level, increased awareness is a tool to
correct myths and stereotypes and honest portrayals of disability can change public views by
presenting disabled people on the basis of their individual strengths. They are transforming the
organizations that reinforce structural inequities which act as barriers to advancement and well-
being. Emphasizing creativity and innovation in this endeavor empowers disabled individuals
and can inspire workplaces to dynamically bridge the talent gap. This ethical allegiance is not
simply out of self-interest, it generates communities in which all individuals, regardless of
ability, can participate meaningfully. In the end, McMenemy, Poulter and Burton (2014)
conclude that encouraging inclusivity not only uplifts people with disabilities but enhances
organizations and society overall, paving the way for progress toward a more just and equitable
future.
References
Ackers, P., Redman, T., & Wilkinson, A. (2013). Employment ethics. Contemporary Human
Resource Management: Text and Cases,, 451-65.
Basser, L. A. (2011). Critical perspectives on human rights and disability law. M. H. Rioux, &
M. Jones (Eds.). Leiden, Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Bell, M. P., Berry, D. P., Marquardt, D. J., & Galvin Green, T. (2013). Introducing
discriminatory job loss: Antecedents, consequences, and complexities. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 28(6), 584-605.
Bennett, K. C., & Hannah, M. A. (2022). Transforming the rights-based encounter: Disability
rights, disability justice, and the ethics of access. Journal of Business and Technical
Communication, 36(3), 326-354.
Bjørnshagen, V., & Ugreninov, E. (2021). Disability disadvantage: experimental evidence of
hiring discrimination against wheelchair users. European Sociological Review, 37(5),
818-833.
Black, S. (2015, September). CEOs and Top Leaders: Solutions to Solve Ethical Dilemmas and
Decision Making. In 5th International Conference on Engaged Management
Scholarship: Baltimore, Maryland.
Bocean, C. G., Nicolescu, M. M., Cazacu, M., & Dumitriu, S. (2022). The role of social
responsibility and ethics in employees’ wellbeing. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14), 8838.
Bolton, S. C., & Laaser, K. (2013). Work, employment and society through the lens of moral
economy. Work, employment and society, 27(3), 508-525.
Buyl, M., Cociancig, C., Frattone, C., & Roekens, N. (2022, June). Tackling algorithmic
disability discrimination in the hiring process: An ethical, legal and technical analysis.
In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and
Transparency (pp. 1071-1082).
Chao, G. T., & Nguyen, H. H. D. (2013). International employment discrimination: A review of
legal issues, human impacts, and organizational implications. Discrimination at work,
379-408.
Croitor, E. (2014). Ethics of Responsibility? Some postmodern views. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 149, 253-260.
Degener, T. (2016). Disability in a human rights context. Laws, 5(3), 35.
Durham, J., Brolan, C. E., & Mukandi, B. (2014). The convention on the rights of persons with
disabilities: A foundation for ethical disability and health research in developing
countries. American journal of public health, 104(11), 2037-2043.
Enderle, G., Almond, B., & Argandoña, A. (Eds.). (2012). People in corporations: ethical
responsibilities and corporate effectiveness (Vol. 1). Springer Science & Business Media.
Era, S. (2024). Reimagining boundaries: Policies, concepts and everyday life at the intersection
of disability and old age. JYU Dissertations.
Gill, N. S. (2019). Human rights framework: an ethical imperative for psychiatry. Australian &
New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 53(1), 8-10.
Gillies, J. (2024). Critical disability theory. In Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being
research (pp. 1495-1497). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Gillies, J. (2024). Critical disability theory. In Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being
research (pp. 1495-1497). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Good, A. (2020). Disability research ethics: A bedrock of disability rights. Handbook of research
ethics and scientific integrity, 655-673.
Gotterbarn, D. (2012). Corporate social media use policy: meeting business and ethical
responsibilities. In ICT Critical Infrastructures and Society: 10th IFIP TC 9 International
Conference on Human Choice and Computers, HCC10 2012, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, September 27-28, 2012. Proceedings 10 (pp. 387-398). Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
Gupta, S. (2017). Ethical issues in designing internet-based research: recommendations for good
practice. Journal of Research Practice, 13(2), D1.
Hirsh, C. E. (2014). Beyond treatment and impact: A context-oriented approach to employment
discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(2), 256-273.
Hsieh, N. H. (2017). The responsibilities and role of business in relation to society: Back to
basics?. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(2), 293-314.
Hunkenschroer, A. L., & Kriebitz, A. (2023). Is AI recruiting (un) ethical? A human rights
perspective on the use of AI for hiring. AI and Ethics, 3(1), 199-213.
Jammaers, E. (2023). Theorizing discursive resistance to organizational ethics of care through a
multi-stakeholder perspective on disability inclusion practices. Journal of Business
Ethics, 183(2), 333-345.
Kessler, L. T. (2016). Employment Discrimination and the Domino Effect. Fla. St. UL Rev., 44,
1041.
King, A. G., & Mrkonich, M. J. (2015). Big data and the risk of employment
discrimination. Okla. L. Rev., 68, 555.
Leidner, J. L., & Plachouras, V. (2017, April). Ethical by design: Ethics best practices for natural
language processing. In Proceedings of the First ACL workshop on ethics in natural
language processing (pp. 30-40).
Lindsay, S., Fuentes, K., Tomas, V., & Hsu, S. (2023). Ableism and workplace discrimination
among youth and young adults with disabilities: A systematic review. Journal of
Occupational Rehabilitation, 33(1), 20-36.
McDonald, K. E., & Kidney, C. A. (2012). What is right? Ethics in intellectual disabilities
research. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 9(1), 27-39.
McKinney, E. L., & Swartz, L. (2021). Employment integration barriers: Experiences of people
with disabilities. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(10),
2298-2320.
McMenemy, D., Poulter, A., & Burton, P. (2014). A handbook of ethical practice: a practical
guide to dealing with ethical issues in information and library work. Elsevier.
Nelles, J., Kohns, S., Spies, J., Bröhl, C., Brandl, C., Mertens, A., & Schlick, C. M. (2017). Best-
practice approach for a solution-oriented technology assessment: ethical, legal, and social
issues in the context of human-robot collaboration. In Advances in Ergonomic Design of
Systems, Products and Processes: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of GfA 2016 (pp.
1-14). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Nier, J. A., & Gaertner, S. L. (2012). The challenge of detecting contemporary forms of
discrimination. Journal of Social Issues, 68(2), 207-220.
Norman, G. C. (2010). Reexamining Models on Disability and Applying Rationality, Morality,
and Ethics to Support Disability Rights in Context of Genetics. Health L. & Pol'y
Brief, 4, 20.
Østerud, K. L. (2023). Disability discrimination: Employer considerations of disabled jobseekers
in light of the ideal worker. Work, employment and society, 37(3), 740-756.
Parsons, P. J. (2016). Ethics in public relations: A guide to best practice. Kogan Page Publishers.
Pellicano, E., & Heyworth, M. (2023). The foundations of autistic flourishing. Current
Psychiatry Reports, 25(9), 419-427.
Petrean, A. C. (2019). Consequences of Discrimination at the Workplace. Acta Universitatis
Danubius. Administratio, 10(1).
Peute, L. W., Lichtner, V., Baysari, M. T., Hägglund, M., Homco, J., Jansen-Kosterink, S., ... &
Marcilly, R. (2020). Challenges and best practices in ethical review of human and
organizational factors studies in health technology: a synthesis of testimonies. Yearbook
of medical informatics, 29(01), 058-070.
Reinders, H. S. (2017). Disability rights, legal and moral. In Human Rights and Disability (pp.
109-124). Routledge.
Reskin, B. F. (2018). Rethinking employment discrimination and its remedies. In Social
Stratification (pp. 849-858). Routledge.
Roberts, J. L. (2015). Rethinking employment discrimination harms. Ind. LJ, 91, 393.
Seing, I., MacEachen, E., Ekberg, K., & Ståhl, C. (2015). Return to work or job transition?
Employer dilemmas in taking social responsibility for return to work in local workplace
practice. Disability and rehabilitation, 37(19), 1760-1769.
Stein, M. A. (2017). Disability human rights. In Nussbaum and law (pp. 3-49). Routledge.
Steiner, O. (2021). Social work in the digital era: Theoretical, ethical and practical
considerations. The British Journal of Social Work, 51(8), 3358-3374.
Sullivan, C. A. (2012). Tortifying employment discrimination. BUL Rev., 92, 1431.
Valecha, N. (2022). A Study on importance of ethical responsibilities in HR
management. International Journal for Global Academic & Scientific Research, 1(1), 13-
22.
Withers, A. J. (2024). Disability politics and theory. Fernwood Publishing.
