PURPOSE: To determine whether the Amendments to the hallmark Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA; effective January 2009), which provide increased access to the antidiscrimination laws for many with chronic illness, are related to changes in workplace discrimination allegations in individuals with a history of cancer. METHODS: Information collected by the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission was used to compare allegations of discrimination and their merit before (2001 to 2008) and after (2009 to 2011) implementation of the Amendments Act. RESULTS: Allegations related to terms of employment (eg, promotions, wages) were more likely to be filed (odds ratio [OR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.61) and determined to have merit (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.77) after implementation of the Amendments Act. Allegations related to workplace relations (eg, harassment, discipline, discharge) were also more likely to be filed post Amendments Act (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.78), although the merit of this complaint remained stable. Filing of all other allegations of discrimination (ie, hiring, reasonable accommodation, and termination) and their merit remained unchanged post Amendments Act. CONCLUSION: Despite the implementation of the Amendments Act, discrimination allegations in those with a history of cancer persisted or in certain areas increased. Although prevention of workplace discrimination rests primarily with employers, the oncology care team is uniquely qualified to provide information related to residual symptoms and function that can facilitate more personalized solutions to workplace discrimination, such as successful workplace accommodations. Information is provided that can assist the oncology team in their efforts to improve work outcomes.
PURPOSE: To determine whether the Amendments to the hallmark Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA; effective January 2009), which provide increased access to the antidiscrimination laws for many with chronic illness, are related to changes in workplace discrimination allegations in individuals with a history of cancer. METHODS: Information collected by the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission was used to compare allegations of discrimination and their merit before (2001 to 2008) and after (2009 to 2011) implementation of the Amendments Act. RESULTS: Allegations related to terms of employment (eg, promotions, wages) were more likely to be filed (odds ratio [OR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.61) and determined to have merit (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.77) after implementation of the Amendments Act. Allegations related to workplace relations (eg, harassment, discipline, discharge) were also more likely to be filed post Amendments Act (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.78), although the merit of this complaint remained stable. Filing of all other allegations of discrimination (ie, hiring, reasonable accommodation, and termination) and their merit remained unchanged post Amendments Act. CONCLUSION: Despite the implementation of the Amendments Act, discrimination allegations in those with a history of cancer persisted or in certain areas increased. Although prevention of workplace discrimination rests primarily with employers, the oncology care team is uniquely qualified to provide information related to residual symptoms and function that can facilitate more personalized solutions to workplace discrimination, such as successful workplace accommodations. Information is provided that can assist the oncology team in their efforts to improve work outcomes.