Disability and Health Journal 4 (2011) 39e45

www.disabilityandhealthjnl.com

Employer benefits from making workplace accommodations

Tatiana I. Solovieva, Ed.D.*, Denetta L. Dowler, Ed.D., Richard T. Walls, Ph.D.
International Center for Disability Information, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV

Abstract
Background: This study explored workplace disability accommodations and their benefits. The participants were employers and
human resource professionals who had not used the services of the Job Accommodation Network (JAN). The companies included large
businesses (more than 499 employees) and small businesses (fewer than 500 employees).
Objective/Hypothesis: The intent of this investigation was to assess the disability accommodations and benefits for the employers.
Methods: The study used responses to online survey from194 employers to discuss disability-related accommodations for an employee
or potential employee. The survey included 128 employers who reported having had a person with a disability who requested an
accommodation.
Results: As reported by the employers, the most frequently mentioned direct benefits from implementing workplace accommodations
were (a) retained a qualified employee, (b) increased worker productivity, and (c) eliminated the cost of training a new employee. The most
frequently mentioned indirect benefits from accommodations were (a) improved interactions with coworkers, (b) increased overall company
morale, and (c) increased overall company productivity. The most frequently reported types of implemented accommodations were buying
equipment and changing work schedules. Most of the respondents estimated the direct benefits of having made an accommodation at more
than $1000.
Conclusions: The findings heighten awareness of benefits associated with making accommodations for people with disabilities in the
workplace. These benefits signify value for business, coworkers, and individuals with disabilities for whom accommodations are critical for
successful employment. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Keywords: Workplace; Benefits; Accommodation; Disability; Cost

The beginning of the 21st century brought many challenges for U.S. employers. In a period of global economic
anxiety and dramatic labor market change coupled with the
retirement expectations for the American baby boomers,
workers with disabilities became even more vulnerable.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data from
the Current Population Survey, the rate of unemployment in
the United States in October 2008 was 11.1% for people with
disabilities compared with 5.9% for people without disabilities. In May 2009, unemployment was 13.7% for people with
disabilities compared with 8.9% for people without disabilities
Financial disclosure: The authors have no financial disclosures to
report. This research was conducted at West Virginia University, by the
International Center for Disability Information, in collaboration with the
Burton Blatt Institute at Syracuse University. Funding for this research is
from the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability
and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) Research Grant H133A060033,
awarded to the Burton Blatt Institute. This support does not constitute
an official endorsement of the study results.
* Corresponding author: 224 Spruce Street, PO Box 6080. Fax: (304)
293-5407.
E-mail address: Tatiana.Solovieva@mail.wvu.edu (T.I. Solovieva).
1936-6574/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Inc.
doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2010.03.001

[1]. Unemployment and underemployment continue to be

a source of national and international concern. Furthermore,
employment and community involvement appear to be
frontline solutions for undoing the disempowerment dependency cycle for people with disabilities [2, p. 170].
The employment rate for people with disabilities has
remained low despite legislation aimed at improving conditions and opportunities for people with disabilities such as
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). In fact,
there was a decline in the employment rate of people with
disabilities after 1989. Burkhauser and Stapleton [3] presented an in-depth analysis of the potential reasons for that
decline from 1989 to 2000. They contended that the effects
of ADA have been ambiguous. There has been litigation
related to firing, but it is difficult to know how much
discrimination there has been in hiring. On the positive
side, the ADA has increased the visibility of workers with
disabilities and may have encouraged positive responses
from employers, coworkers, educators, and others.
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) eligibility expansions also
may have contributed to the decline in employment rates

40

T.I. Solovieva et al. / Disability and Health Journal 4 (2011) 39e45

of individuals with disabilities [3,4]. Some researchers and

advocates have alluded to other possible explanations for
the substantial decline in employment rates such as (a)
quality (credibility) of the data in the various surveys used,
(b) definitions used to indicate disability, (c) the nature of
work (stability and availability), (d) growth in health care
costs, and (e) expansion in severity of health conditions
and impairments. Burkhauser and Stapleton were
convinced that a change in public policy should be our goal
because The unprecedented fall in the employment rate of
working age people with disabilities in the 1990s was
a direct effect of the unintended consequences of public
policies [3, p. 200].
Stapleton and Burkhauser had previously edited a book
titled The Decline in Employment of People With Disabilities: A Policy Puzzle [5]. In that book, 3 major forces were
proposed as primary causes for the decline in employment
of people with disabilities. The first was increases in the
severity of health conditions and impairments among those
with work/activity limitations [6,7]. A second proposed
reason for the decline was the ADA [8]. The third reason
was lowering the eligibility standards and raising the benefits of the SSDI and SSI programs [9]. In the concluding
chapter, Stapleton and Burkhauser pointed out the
consensus among stakeholders toward (a) increasing investment in human capital of individuals with disabilities
(increasing the skills they have) and (b) minimizing
perceived barriers to their employment (perceived costs of
workplace accommodations and ADA litigation) [5].
In the contemporary United States, the demand-side jobdevelopment approach has been gradually transitioning
from a hire handicap charity appeal to a more careful
match between employee competencies and employer
needs [10]. Implementing job accommodations for individuals with disabilities is a vital tool for increasing workplace
productivity. Workplace accommodations are individualized solutions that enable people with disabilities to achieve
and maintain employment, and considering an accommodation is a necessary step for employers who wish to attract
and retain workers with disabilities.
In the present investigation, our interest was in learning
more about how people with disabilities use accommodations at the workplace to improve their performance and
how accommodations are implemented. Our intent was to
explore the spectrum of workplace accommodations for
employees with disabilities and the impact of those accommodations on accessibility and productivity. Thus, this
research focuses on the following questions. What are the
job accommodations requested by the employees? What
are the benefits for the employers of implementing
accommodations?
In addition to employers and individuals with disabilities, disability researchers and advocates are concerned
with the costs and benefits of making workplace accommodations. Also, knowledge of the efficacy of workplace
accommodations may be beneficial to governmental

agencies (e.g., the Occupational Safety and Health Administration), rehabilitation centers, human resources departments, and other parties concerned about employment
issues for people with disabilities.
Gainful employment is important. It enhances an individuals self-worth and sense of independence. Opportunities in the workplace improve social inclusion [11] and
promote recovery [12]. A national study to examine the
use of worksite assistive technology for the benefit of
people with disabilities found that the implementation of
low-cost and low-technology devices often made a difference between having and not having a job for workers with
disabilities [13]. Many employers demonstrated readiness
to hire workers with disabilities as long as the business
could profit and not invest much to provide accommodations necessary to the person with a disability at the workplace [14]. Research studies published more than 10 years
ago and as recently as 2009 report on the relatively low cost
of accommodations [15-28].
Cost, of course, is not the only concern. Effective accommodations impact not only the employee but also the
employer (second party) and the community of coworkers
(third party) [29]. Some accommodations are effective with
a particular disability (e.g., a fragrance-free area for a person
with chemical sensitivity), and some accommodations are
effective with a variety of impairments (e.g., a flexible
schedule) [30-32]. Personal characteristics interact with
service characteristics and accommodation characteristics
to provide a more complete model of employment success
[33,34]. Companies (employers) also vary substantially in
their willingness and ability to reduce workplace barriers
[35]. The size and type of business, disabling condition,
intent of accommodation, cost of accommodation, and
potential benefits to the employee-employer-others
constituencies yield a complex cause-effect network.

Methods
Participant recruitment
A national business directory was used to obtain the
names and contact information for business owners and
human resource professionals who could be potential
participants. Initially, the business name was compared
with a list of businesses from the Job Accommodation
Network (JAN) database. If the business appeared on the
JAN list, it was excluded from the list of potential participants. For the purposes of this study, employers who use
JAN are assumed to have a higher level of knowledge about
workplace accommodations, a higher level of willingness
to obtain information and resources for workplace accommodations, and a higher level of commitment to diversity
as evidenced by reaching out to JAN. As non-JAN users,
these participants would be more nave concerning accommodation and accommodation issues than those who use

T.I. Solovieva et al. / Disability and Health Journal 4 (2011) 39e45

JAN. Future studies will make direct comparisons between

these populations. In the current study, these employers
contributed data to a study of the use of workplace accommodations by employees with disabilities in the work
environment.
A sample of 1257 employers was obtained through
a directory vendor. Each business was contacted via e-mail
and asked to participate. Participants were provided with
information about the study, and consent was obtained in
accordance with university guidelines for the protection
of human subjects. A total of 229 agreed to participate
(18% response rate). The survey was available online from
December 8, 2008, through April 24, 2009. Ethical
practices for informed consent were followed. The West
Virginia University Institutional Review Board for Protection of Human Research Subjects approved the study.
Survey instrument
Several different online survey collection options were
explored, and SurveyMonkey was selected. SurveyMonkey
allowed flexibility in designing the survey, supported giving
a direct survey link to those who agreed to participate,
included reliable response handling, provided a method
for downloading the responses into a spreadsheet for analysis, and was affordable. Each potential survey participant
received an e-mail with an attached official invitation on
institutional letterhead. There was a link to the survey for
easy access. Potential participants were encouraged to
share their experiences on the use of job accommodations
in the workplace for employees with disabilities. The letter
to these potential participants stated the objective of this
research to involve learning more about how people with
disabilities use accommodations at the workplace to
improve performance at work and how accommodations
are implemented. In addition to having the opportunity
to contribute valued information from their experience, an
incentive for filling out the survey online was a drawing
for an Apple iPod Shuffle.
The 39 survey questions were related to 7 areas of
concern. (1) Company demographics included type of business, number of employees, and number of employees with
a disability. (2) Accommodation requests questions included
job title, job status, wages, years with the company, and
employee demographics for the most recent accommodation
requested. (3) Degree of work limitation items included
perceived limitation without an accommodation, perceived
degree of limitation with an accommodation, and a description of the employees disability (e.g., spine injury). (4)
Accommodation implementation items involved indication
of current status of the accommodation (e.g., pending, implemented) and who makes the decision to approve the accommodation. (5) Type of accommodation items asked the
participant to identify the nature of the accommodation
(e.g., worksite modification, work-schedule change, job restructuring). (6) Cost items inquired about one-time cost or

41

annual cost for accommodations (direct and indirect), and

who paid (e.g., employee, rehabilitation services, insurance
company, and/or employer). (7) Benefit items included direct
benefits realized as a result of the accommodation (e.g.,
increased productivity), indirect benefits (e.g., company
morale), and estimates of dollar values of the benefits.

Results
The initial list of potential respondents (employers)
numbered 1257, of which 229 completed the survey (18%
completion rate). There were 35 responses eliminated
because the respondent had previously used JAN services.
Thus, there were 194 non-JAN users (employers) who responded to the questions in the survey. The types of business of the respondents included construction, education,
finance, government, information technology/telecommunications, manufacturing, media, medical, nonprofit organizations, professional services, sales, service industries,
transportation, and utilities. The business sizes ranged from
5 to 45,000 employees with a mean of 2912 employees and
a median of 500 employees. Numbers of current employees
were as follows: 14% had less than 100 employees, 18%
had 100 to 249 employees, 15% had 250 to 499 employees,
15% had 500 to 999 employees, 22% had 1000 to 4999
employees, and 16% had 5000 or more employees.
The employers were asked, Have you ever had an
employee who requested an accommodation? The 128
who answered Yes continued with the survey. The
participants were then asked to think of the last request they
received for an accommodation and to keep this case in
mind as they responded to the rest of the questions. Survey
respondents were asked to recall the work status and demographic information of that last employee with disability for
whom they considered providing workplace accommodations. They answered questions about that employees
age, gender, race, ethnicity, highest educational level, functional work limitation, disability type, job title, and number
of years with the company, hours worked, and wages.
For the participating businesses, 47% had fewer than
500 employees (small business), and 53% had 500 or more
employees (large business). Of the 128 responses from
employers, the answers for intent of the job accommodation
included retaining the employee (72%), hiring a new
employee who already had received a job offer (9%),
accommodating a job applicant during the application
process (4%), promoting an employee (1%), and other
(14%). Thus, the most common intention of respondents
for providing workplace accommodations was to retain
a current employee.
The number of years the employee had been with the
company ranged from just starting to 30 years. With regard
to gender of employees who requested accommodations, 38%
were male and 62% were female. With regard to race, 76%
were white, 14% were black or African American, 2% were

42

T.I. Solovieva et al. / Disability and Health Journal 4 (2011) 39e45

Asian, 1% were Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and

7% were unknown/other. In terms of ethnicity, 4% of the
accommodations were for Hispanic or Latino employees. In
terms of age, 5% of employees were between 18 and 25 years
old, 18% were between 26 and 35 years old, 33% were
between 36 and 45 years old, 25% were between 46 and 55
years old, 14% were between 56 and 65 years old, 1% of the
employees were over 65 years old, and 4% did not report age.
With regard to the education of those employees who requested an accommodation, 69% had more than a high
school education, of whom 42% had graduated from
college (4-year degree), 18% had a graduate or professional
school degree (e.g., M.A., M.B.A., Ph.D., M.D., J.D.), and
9% held an associates degree (2-year degree). About 22%
of the employees had a high school diploma or GED, 2%
had a high school certificate (not a high school diploma),
1% did not complete high school, and 6% did not report
education level.
An open-ended question called for the respondents to
name or describe the employees job. Responses included
administrative assistant, chief financial officer, software
engineer, technician, instructor, producer, recruiter, truck
driver, clinical lab scientist, architect, receptionist, and
analyst. For those who reported an hourly wage, the range
was from $8.50 an hour to $64.42 an hour, with a mean of
$19.93 and a median of $15.38. For those who reported an
annual salary, the range was from $17,680 to $399,000 per
year, with a mean of $63,587 and a median of $48,000.
The employees disability was reported by the employer in
laymans terms (e.g., bone disorder that limited standing and
sitting, weight restriction due to back injury). These reported
limitations and disabling conditions were coded by the
researchers. They can be characterized as motor, 59% (e.g.,
paraplegia, carpal tunnel); sensory, 22% (e.g., deafness,
partial loss of vision); cognitive, 6% (e.g., traumatic brain
injury, neurological disorder); cardiac/respiratory, 4% (e.g.,
heart issues, poor circulation); mental health, 2% (e.g.,
depression, alcoholism); or other, 7% (e.g., diabetes,
allergies).
When asked whether the person who had requested an
accommodation had a physical, mental, or other health
condition that substantially limited the kind or amount of
work that he or she could do, 76% of participants answered
Yes, and 24% answered No. When rating the persons
(employees) functional ability to work without accommodations, 6% of the employees were rated as not limited at all,
73% were rated as somewhat limited, and 21% were rated
as substantially limited. When rating the persons functional ability to work with accommodations, the employers
indicated that if appropriate job accommodations were
provided, only 4% of the employees with disabilities would
still be considered substantially limited in working.
As noted previously, the employers were asked to
respond with respect to the last request they had received
for an accommodation. The status of accommodation implementation was examined. An accommodation had been

made in 94% of the cases. The decision to accommodate

was pending for 4%, and no accommodation had been
made for 2% of the accommodation requests.
In the survey, it was possible to choose more than 1 answer
to the question, Who makes the decision whether the
company will provide an accommodation? The responses
revealed the leading role was most commonly given to the
human resources department (n 5 96). Other decisions
makers included company managers (n 5 35), employees
supervisor (n 5 28), legal department (n 5 9), personnel
department (n 5 1), and other (n 5 26).
Table 1 presents the variety of accommodation solutions
in the order of frequency of use as reported in the survey.
As shown in Table 1, equipment purchases and work
schedule changes were the most frequently implemented
accommodations, regardless of business size. About 40%
of all types of accommodations were accounted for by these
2 categories. The types of accommodations made by small
versus large businesses differed most for the working from
home/telework category and the job reassignment category.
A larger proportion of small businesses supported work
from home. It is likely that small companies have greater
flexibility in such assignments than do larger entities. Large
businesses were more likely than small businesses to reassign a worker to a different position. It seems plausible that
large businesses have a pool of available jobs to which
a transfer can be made. More than half of the accommodation categories in Table 1 represent less than 10% of the
total accommodations reported (e.g., providing interpreter,
reader, job coach 5 4%). These relatively low-incidence
accommodations, however, are critical to the employment
of the workers who use them. Examples of these categories
of workplace accommodations follow.
Examples of buying equipment were Telecommunication
Device for the Deaf (TDD), wheelchair, scooter, amplified
telephone headset, air cleaner, and adjustable computer
equipment. Examples of changing work schedule were
flex-time, shift change, part-time, light duty, and multiple
breaks. Examples of modifying worksite were desk height,
bathroom adaptations, change of floor waxes, increased
lighting, parking accommodation, and ramp to door. Examples of modifying equipment were telephone adjustment,
raised shelves, special monitor lift, and cubicle surface
change. Examples of working from home or telework were
online teaching from home, work from home around doctor
appointments, and work from home certain hours each
week. Examples of educating coworkers were awareness
training, department diversity meetings, evacuation procedures training, and informal advising of nearby coworkers.
Examples of reassigning to another job were lowered lifting requirements, providing community rehabilitation
support, different teaching load, and limiting work that
required use of the wrist. Examples of providing interpreter, reader, job coach were American Sign Language
interpreter for meetings, training on voice-recognition software, and providing a part-time job coach at the companys

T.I. Solovieva et al. / Disability and Health Journal 4 (2011) 39e45

43

Table 1
Implementation of accommodations by business size
Category of accommodation

Small business (n 5 53)

(103 accommodations)

Large business (n 5 75)

(132 accommodations)

Total (n 5 128 businesses)

(233 accommodations)

Buying equipment
Changing work schedule
Modifying worksite
Modifying equipment
Working from home/telework
Educating coworkers
Reassigning to another job
Providing interpreter, reader, job coach
Changing workplace policy
Providing information in alternative format
Other
Total

21%
22%
12%
13%
11%
6%
2%
3%
5%
1%
4%
100%

21%
19%
12%
11%
5%
8%
8%
5%
3%
5%
3%
100%

21%
21%
12%
12%
8%
7%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
100%

expense. Examples of changing workplace policy were

allowing the employee to not climb a ladder, adding an
ergonomics policy, allowing space heater, modifying emergency exit procedures, modifying a salary to supplement
disability income, and having a buddy on the work floor.
Examples of providing info in alternative format were
larger print, visual fire alarm, increased written material,
and transcription of phone information.
Responders were asked to indicate the effectiveness of
the accommodations. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being
not effective at all and 5 being extremely effective,
81% of participants rated the accommodation as effective
or extremely effective. The not effective at all answer
was selected by only 4% of the respondents.
The participating employers reported the one-time cost or
the annual cost of the accommodation. The one-time costs
included such accommodation expenses as buying a piece
of equipment (e.g., scooter) or modifying the worksite
(e.g., ramp to door). The annual costs included such accommodation expenses as providing an interpreter, reader, job
coach (e.g., job coach salary) or changing workplace policy
(e.g., modifying salary to supplement disability income).
Neither one-time costs nor annual costs were involved in
such accommodations as changing work schedule (e.g., shift
change) or educating coworkers (e.g., using current
managers to do informal advising of coworkers).
Of those who responded, 24% indicated the accommodation was made with no one-time cost and no annual cost ($0).
More than half of responders (55%) reported a one-time cost
for the accommodation (mean 5 $2698, median 5 $500).
There were 18% who indicated an annual cost (mean 5
$14,628, median 5 $2000). Overall, when the data included
zero dollar costs ($0) for the accommodations that had been
made, (a) the one-time cost mean was $1480 and the median
was $50, and (b) the annual cost mean was $2674 with
a median of $0.
The respondents could indicate multiple sources of
payment for the workplace accommodation (e.g., employer
and insurance company). Thus, the total of the percentages
reported exceeds 100%. Those contributing to payment for

the accommodations were employer (90% of cases), insurance company (10% of cases), employee (6% of cases), and
rehabilitation services (4% of cases). Direct costs were reported as one-time costs or annual costs. Indirect costs are
those not directly related to providing the accommodation,
such as lost time because of training, supervisors time, or
loss of production. Regarding the indirect cost, 54% of the
cases reported no indirect cost was involved ($0). In 35% of
cases, there was indirect cost involved, and 11% did not
know if any indirect costs had been incurred. The estimated
indirect cost mean was $7053 with a median of $510 when
zero ($0) amounts were included.
Employers reported the perceived benefits of making
accommodations. Direct benefits are shown in Table 2. At
least 90% of the employers reported that making an accommodation allowed the company to retain a qualified
employee. This was true for both large and small businesses. At least 50% of the employers indicated that the
accommodation increased worker productivity and eliminated the cost of training a new employee. Other direct
benefits cited by the employers were increased attendance,
increased company diversity, hiring of qualified employees,
saved insurance costs, and promotion of an employee. The
Table 2
Percent of employers (small versus large companies) that reported a given
direct benefit the company gained by providing an accommodation

Direct benefit
Retained a qualified employee
Increased the accommodated
workers productivity
Eliminated cost of training a new
employee
Increased employees attendance
Increased diversity of the company
Hired a qualified employee
Saved Workers Compensation or
other insurance costs
Promoted an employee

Small
business
(n 5 41)

Large
business
(n 5 48)

Total
(n 5 89)

90%
90%

92%
67%

91%
71%

63%

50%

56%

56%
29%
32%
24%

38%
31%
23%
17%

46%
30%
27%
20%

2%

15%

9%

T.I. Solovieva et al. / Disability and Health Journal 4 (2011) 39e45

44

Table 3
Indirect benefits the company gained by providing the accommodation

Indirect benefits
Improved interactions with
coworkers
Increased overall company
morale
Increased overall company
productivity
Increased workplace safety
Improved interactions with
customers
Increased overall company
attendance

Small
business
(n 5 38)

Large
business
(n 5 44)

Total
(n 5 82)

53%

30%

40%

42%

30%

35%

37%

25%

30%

29%
29%

20%
7%

24%
17%

24%

9%

16%

employers were asked to estimate the dollar value of these

direct benefits. Of those who responded (n 5 69), 61%
estimated the direct benefits to the company at more than
$1000. Others estimated direct benefits between $500 and
$1000 (16%), between $100 and $500 (13%), or less than
$100 (10%).
Indirect benefits the company gained by providing the
accommodation are shown in Table 3. The indirect benefits
most widely mentioned by employers were improved interactions with coworkers, increased overall company morale,
and increased overall company productivity. Small businesses were more likely than large businesses to name an
indirect benefit (e.g., improved interaction with coworkers,
53% for small businesses versus 30% for large businesses).
When the employers estimated the dollar value of these
indirect benefits, 32% of them projected more than $1000
in indirect benefits from making an accommodation.

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to learn about the experiences of businesses in making workplace accommodations
for employees with disabilities. The participants were individuals who were involved in the hiring process and who
had not previously contacted JAN (non-JAN users). These
participants had such titles as chief human resource officer,
chief personnel officer, chief human capital officer, director
of labor-employment-immigration, director of recruitingdiversity, director of staffing, director of personnel, vice president for HR-legal affairs, director of employee benefits, and
HR manager.
The findings from this investigation can be added to the
existing literature to increase the knowledge base on costs,
benefits, and efficacy of making workplace accommodations. The education levels for employees with disabilities
in this sample were primarily above high school, signifying
high potential that can be enhanced through appropriate
accommodation. Employers can benefit from understanding
the potential that results from hiring persons with

disabilities, regardless of whether they need an accommodation. Many accommodations had no cost (e.g., changing
the work schedule, moving the individual to another location), and accommodations are often requested and/or
provided to retain a current employee.
Limitations of the research may include (a) the selfreport nature of the survey reflected in respondents recall
after varying periods of time, (b) a relatively small sample
of employers, and (c) use of a nonrepresentative sample of
only 18% of the recruitment group. Additionally, the
employers may not have answered every question, which
reduces the sample size for a particular item.
The results of this research effort demonstrate the values
and benefits of effective accommodation implementation.
Representatives of both small and large businesses discussed various sorts of accommodations. The 128 participants reported making 233 workplace accommodations.
Overall, 81% of participants rated the accommodations
they made for an employee with a disability as effective.
The mean one-time cost of accommodations was less than
$1500. The direct benefits of making these accommodations included retention of a qualified employee and
increased worker productivity. The majority of the respondents (61%) reported more than $1000 in direct benefits as
a result of making an accommodation.
It seems reasonable that the costs of not retaining
a current employee by not making an accommodation
would include the cost in dollars and time of posting the
position, interviewing applicants, making a selection decision, integrating the new worker, training, and lost production during the recruiting-hiring-training process. These
factors will vary across positions, but each position has
an impact on overall company productivity. Most of the
survey participants did not respond to the items asking
for estimates of accommodation values. It is difficult to give
a realistic estimate of the benefits and costs of making
reasonable accommodations. Intangibles, such as company
morale, interact with more concrete measures of productivity, such as attendance, to challenge the accuracy of
any measure of the value of making an accommodation.
While it is difficult to assign a dollar value to indirect benefits, they help define the work environment and corporate
culture. Together, direct and indirect benefits signify value
for the business, coworkers, and individuals with disabilities for whom accommodations are critical to successful
employment.
There are potential legal consequences to the employer
for not making a reasonable accommodation. If an
employer is concerned that the company might be sued, it
is plausible that the cost of the lawsuit and potential settlement could figure into the benefits of making an accommodation. Future studies might address the impact of potential
litigation on decisions to accommodate.
Most studies on workplace accommodations concentrate
on the benefits to the accommodated employee [e.g., 12].
Second-party benefits, however, relate to the employer,

T.I. Solovieva et al. / Disability and Health Journal 4 (2011) 39e45

and third-party benefits involve coworkers and the larger

community. Strict cost-benefit analysis is not always the
best approach to assessing the value of workplace accommodation, and a broader benefits construct that considers
second-party and third-party benefits may be recommended
for future research [36].

References
[1] United States Department of Labor. New monthly data series on the
employment status of people with a disability. Accessed June 30,
2009. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsdisability.htm.
[2] Citron T, Brooks-Lane N, Crandell D, et al. A revolution in the employment process of individuals with disabilities: customized employment
as the catalyst for system change. J Vocat Rehab. 2008;28:169-179.
[3] Burkhauser RV, Stapleton DC. The decline in employment rate for
people with disabilities: bad data, bad health, or bad policy? J Voc
Rehab. 2004;20:185-201.
[4] Winter M. Public policies and vulnerable populations. Hum Ecol.
2004;32:10-13.
[5] Stapleton DC, Burkhauser RV, eds. The Decline in Employment of
People With Disabilities: A Policy Puzzle. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E.
Upjohn Institute for Employment Research; 2003.
[6] Kaye HS. Employment and the changing disability population. In:
Stapleton D, Burkhauser R, eds. The Decline in Employment of
People With Disabilities: A Policy Puzzle. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E.
Upjohn Institute for Employment Research; 2003:217-258.
[7] Kruse D, Shur L. Does the definition affect the outcome?. In:
Stapleton D, Burkhauser R, eds. The Decline in Employment of
People With Disabilities: A Policy Puzzle. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E.
Upjohn Institute for Employment Research; 2003:279-300.
[8] DeLeire T. The Americans with Disabilities Act and the employment
of people with disabilities. In: Stapleton D, Burkhauser R, eds. The
Decline in Employment of People With Disabilities: A Policy Puzzle.
Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research;
2003:259-277.
[9] Goodman N, Waidmann T. Social Security Disability Insurance and
the recent decline in the employment rate of people with disabilities.
In: Stapleton D, Burkhauser R, eds. The Decline in Employment of
People With Disabilities: A Policy Puzzle. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E.
Upjohn Institute for Employment Research; 2003:339-368.
[10] Luecking RG. Emerging employer views of people with disabilities
and the future of job development. J Vocat Rehab. 2008;29:3-13.
[11] Hall SA. The social inclusion of people with disabilities: a qualitative
meta-analysis. J Ethnogr Qual Res. 2009;3:162-173.
[12] Dunn EC, Wewiorski NJ, Rogers SE. The meaning and importance of
employment to people in recovery from serious mental illness: results
of a qualitative study. Psych Rehab J. 2008;32(1):59-62.
[13] Gamble MJ, Dowler DL, Orslene LE. Assistive technology: choosing
the right tool for the right job. J Vocat Rehab. 2006;24:73-80.
[14] Bevins BC. Employability of individuals with varying disabilities and
costs of needed workplace accommodations. Accessed July 14, 2009.
http://etd-submit.etsu.edu/etd/theses/available/etd-0326103-193755/
unrestricted/BevinsB040303f.pdf.

45

[15] Bruyere SM. Civil rights and employment issues of disability policy.
J Disabil Pol Stud. 2000;11:18-28.
[16] Dietz MW. Reasonable accommodations for attorneys with disabilities.
Fla Bar J. 2007; April:66-69.
[17] Dowler DL, Hirsh AE, Kittle RD, Hendricks DJ. Outcomes of
reasonable accommodations in the workplace. Technol Disabil.
1996;5:345-354.
[18] Friedman S. Accommodation issues in the work place for people with
disabilities: a needs assessment in an educational setting. Disabil
Handicap Soc. 1993;8(1):3-22.
[19] Halpern M. The costs of job accommodations for employees with low
back pain. Work. 2003;21:271-278.
[20] Hendricks DJ, Batiste LC, Hirsh A, et al. Cost and effectiveness of
accommodations in the workplace: preliminary results of a nationwide
study. Disabil Stud Q. 2005;25(4):12.
[21] Langton AJ, Ramseur H. Enhancing employment outcomes through
job accommodation and assistive technology resources and services.
J Vocat Rehab. 2001;16:27-37.
[22] Lee B. Legal requirements and employer responses to accommodating
employees with disabilities. Hum Resource Manage Rev. 1996;6(4):
231-251.
[23] Schartz HA, Hendricks DJ, Blanck P. Workplace accommodations:
evidence based outcomes. Work. 2006;27:345-354.
[24] Schartz HA, Schartz KM, Hendricks DJ, Blanck P. Workplace
accommodations: empirical study of current employees. Miss Law
J. 2006;75:917-943.
[25] Solovieva TI, Walls RT, Hendricks DJ, Dowler DL. Cost of workplace
accommodations for individuals with disabilities: with or without
personal assistance services. Disabil Health J. 2009;2:196-205.
[26] Stein MA. The law and economics of disability accommodations.
Duke Law J. 2003;53:79-191.
[27] Unger DD. A national study of employers experiences with workers
with disabilities and their knowledge and utilization of accommodations
[dissertation]. Virginia Commonwealth University; 2001.
[28] Unger D, Kregel J. Employers knowledge and utilization of
accommodations. Work. 2003;21:5-15.
[29] Wehman P. Workplace inclusion: persons with disabilities and
coworkers working together. J Vocat Rehab. 2003;18:131-141.
[30] Bates KR. Worksite accommodations for manufacturing employees
in a pipe fabrication facility. Work. 1999;12:233-237.
[31] Gibson PR, Lindberg A. Work accommodation for people with
multiple chemical sensitivity. Disabil Soc. 2007;22(7):717-732.
[32] Targett PS, Wehman PH, McKinley WO, Young CL. Successful work
supports for persons with SCI: focus on job retention. J Vocat Rehab.
2004;21:19-26.
[33] Martz E, Xu YJ. Person-related and service-related factors predicting
employment of individuals with disabilities. J Vocat Rehab. 2008;28:
97-104.
[34] Schmidt MA, Smith DL. Individuals with disabilities perceptions on
preparedness for the workforce and factors that limit employment.
Work. 2007;28:13-21.
[35] Gilbride D, Stensrud R, Vandergoot D, Golden K. Identification of
the characteristics of work environments and employers open to
hiring and accommodating people with disabilities. Rehab Couns
Bull. 2003;46(3):130-137.
[36] Emens EF. Integrating accommodation. U Penn Law Rev.
2008;156(4):839-922.