Advertisement

Mentally Ill Employees’ Quest for Justice in Litigation: Procedural and Distributive

  • Helen LaVanEmail author
Article
  • 87 Downloads

Abstract

This research explores the issue of how employees with mental illnesses receive justice in litigation. It is a 10% random sample of cases litigated in 2005, 2010, and 2015. NVivo was used to auto code the almost 850,000 words that comprise these cases, considering variables such as psychological illnesses and treatment, changes in legal bases, and case outcomes over the years. Statistically significant differences in case outcome for employees was found when recent cases were compared with the earlier ones. The research develops and tests the concept of three types of justice: procedural internal, procedural external, and distributive. Using Kruskal Wallace, statistically significant differences were found in the justice types. However, these were not significantly related to case outcomes. Suggestions for future research are also provided.

Keywords

Procedural justice Distributive justice Mentally ill employees Litigation NVivo Americans with disabilities act 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The author affirms that the research was conducted in compliance with all ethical standards. IRB review indicated that the research was archival in nature and exempt from a formal review. Addtionally, there are no conflict of interest to declare.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Anxiety: Causes, symptoms, and treatments. (2017) Accessed June 20, 2018. Retrieved from https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/info/anxiety.
  2. Baldridge, D. C., & Swift, M. L. (2013). Withholding requests for disability accommodation: The role of individual differences and disability attributes. Journal of Management, 39(3), 743–762.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310396375.
  3. Ballard, R., & Henry, C. (2016). Mediation and mental health claims under the ADA. Capitol University Law Review, 44, 31–66. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/capulr44&div=6&id=&page=.
  4. Befort, S. F. (2013). An empirical examination of case outcomes under the ADA amendments act. Washington & Lee Law Review, 70, 2027. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/waslee70&div=50&id=&page=.
  5. Berndt, E. R., Bailit, H. L., Keller, M. B., Verner, J. C., & Finkelstein, S. N. (2000). Health care use and at-work productivity among employees with mental disorders. Health Affairs, 19(4), 244–256.  https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.19.4.244.
  6. Berrey, E., Hoffman, S. G., & Nielsen, L. B. (2012). Situated justice: A contextual analysis of fairness and inequality in employment discrimination litigation. Law and Society Review, 46(1), 1–36.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00471.x.
  7. Best, R. K., Edelman, L. B., Krieger, L. H., & Eliason, S. R. (2011). Multiple disadvantages: An empirical test of intersectionality theory in EEO litigation. Law and Society Review, 45(4), 991–1025.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2011.00463.x.
  8. CERS. (2012). The average employee lawsuit is $250,000: How safe is your company? [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.cersnow.com/blog/the-average-employee-lawsuit-costs-250000how-safe-is-your-company/
  9. Chan, M. (2008). Procedural justice: Social science perspectives. In R. W. Kolb (Ed.), Encyclopedia of business ethics and society (pp. 1687–1690). Thousand Oaks: Sage.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412956260.n652.
  10. Charmaz, K., & Bryant, A. (2008). Grounded Theory. In L. Given (Ed.), Sage Encyclopedia Of Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909.n189.
  11. Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E. (2014). Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences. The Qualitative Report, 19(32), 1–20. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR19/cho64.pdf
  12. Clarke, A. E., & Charmaz, K. (2014). Grounded theory and situational analysis. In Sage Benchmarks in Social Research Methods. (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, S., & Janicki-Deverts, D. (2012). Who's stressed? Distributions of psychological stress in the united states in probability samples from 1983, 2006, and 2009. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(6), 1320–1334.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00900.x.
  14. Colella, A. (2001). Coworker distributive fairness judgments of the workplace accommodation of employees with disabilities. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 100–116.  https://doi.org/10.2307/259397.
  15. De Lorenzo, M. S. (2013). Employee mental illness: Managing the hidden epidemic. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 25(4), 219–238.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-013-9226-x.
  16. Definition of addiction. (2018) Accessed June 20, 2018. Retrieved from https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/definition-of-addiction/.
  17. Definition of brain injury (2018). Accessed June 20, 2018. Retrieved from https://www.neuroskills.com/education/definition-of-brain-injury.php.
  18. Dong, S. (2018). Assessing Workplace Accommodation Requests Among Older Workers. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 61(2), 101–111.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0034355216687286
  19. Dorfman, D. (2017). Re-claiming disability: Identity, procedural justice, and the disability determination process. Law & Social Inquiry, 42(1), 195–231.  https://doi.org/10.1111/lsi.12176.
  20. Druss, B. G., Marcus, S. C., Rosenheck, R. A., Olfson, M., Tanielian, T., & Pincus, H. A. (2000). Understanding disability in mental and general medical conditions. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157(9), 1485–1491.  https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.157.9.1485.
  21. Druss, B. G., Rosenheck, R. A., & Sledge, W. H. (2014). Health and disability costs of depressive illness in a major us corporation. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157(8).  https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.157.8.1274.
  22. Eigen, Z. J., & Litwin, A. S. (2014). Justice or just between us? Empirical evidence of the trade-off between procedural and interactional justice in workplace dispute resolution. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 67(1), 171–201.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001979391406700107.
  23. Eisenberg, T. (2011). The origins, nature, and promise of empirical legal studies and a response to concerns. University of Illinois Law Review, 1713. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/unilllr2011&div=67&id=&page=.
  24. Florey, A. T., & Harrison, D. A. (2000). Responses to informal accommodation requests from employees with disabilities: Multistudy evidence on willingness to comply. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 224–233.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1556379.
  25. Goldman, B., Shapiro, D. L., & Pearsall, M. (2016). Towards an understanding of the role of anticipatory justice in the employment dispute-resolution process: An investigation of EEOC-sponsored mediation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 27(2), 275–298.  https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-12-2015-0081.
  26. Gough, M. D. (2014). The high costs of an inexpensive forum: An empirical analysis of employment discrimination claims heard in arbitration and civil litigation. Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, 35, 91. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/berkjemp35&div=11&id=&page=.
  27. Greenberg, P. E., Fournier, A.-A., et al. (2015). The economic burden of adults with major depressive disorder in the united states (2005 and 2010). The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 76(2), 155–162.  https://doi.org/10.4088/JCP.14m09298.
  28. Hamilton, S., Lewis-Holmes, E., Pinfold, V., Henderson, C., Rose, D., & Thornicroft, G. (2014). Discrimination against people with a mental health diagnosis: Qualitative analysis of reported experiences. Journal of Mental Health, 23(2), 88–93.  https://doi.org/10.3109/09638237.2014.880408.
  29. Hampson, M., Hicks, R., & Watt, B. (2016). Understanding the employment barriers and support needs of people living with psychosis. The Qualitative Report, 21(5), 870. Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol21/iss5/5/
  30. Harris, S. P., Gould, R., Ojok, P., Fujiura, G., Jones, R., Olmstead, A. (2014). Scoping review of the Americans with Disabilities Act: What research exists, and where do we go from here? Disability Studies Quarterly, 34(3). Retrieved from http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/3883/3645
  31. Hickox, S. A., & Guzman, J. M. (2014). Leave as an accommodation: When is enough, enough. Cleveland State Law Review, 62, 437. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/clevslr62&div=16&id=&page=.
  32. Ho, D. E., & Kramer, L. (2013). Introduction: The empirical revolution in law. Stanford Law Review, 65, 1195–1202. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/stflr65&g_sent=1&id=1235
  33. Johnson, J. A. (2016). The value—and limits—of distributive justice in information privacy. [Paper presented at the Eastern Sociological Society 2016 Annual Meeting Digital Sociology Mini-Conference]. Boston.Google Scholar
  34. Kaminer, D. (2016). Mentally ill employees in the workplace: Does the ADA Amendments Act provide adequate protection? Health Matrix, 26(1). Retrieved from http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1591&context=healthmatrix
  35. Kessler, R. C., Akiskal, H. S., Ames, M., Birnbaum, H., Greenberg, P., Hirschfeld, R. M., et al. (2006). Prevalence and effects of mood disorders on work performance in a nationally representative sample of US workers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(9), 1561–1568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kilgour, E., Kosny, A., Akkermans, A., & Collie, A. (2015). Procedural justice and the use of independent medical evaluations in workers’ compensation. Psychological Injury and Law, 8(2), 153–168.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-015-9222-6.
  37. Krause (2017). 2016 disability statistics annual report. Retrieved from University of New Hampshire. Durham, NH: https://www.disabilitycompendium.org/sites/default/files/user-uploads/2016_AnnualReport.pdf. Accessed October 1, 2018.
  38. Kuznetsova, Y., & Yalcin, B. (2017). Inclusion of persons with disabilities in mainstream employment: Is it really all about the money? A case study of four large companies in Norway and Sweden. Disability & Society, 32(2), 233–253.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1281794.
  39. McBride, A., Hebson, G., & Holgate, J. (2015). Intersectionality: Are we taking enough notice in the field of work and employment relations? Work. Employment & Society, 29(2), 331–341.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017014538337.
  40. McDowell, C., & Fossey, E. (2015). Workplace accommodations for people with mental illness: A scoping review. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 25(1), 197–206.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-014-9512-y.
  41. Mental health conditions. (2018). Accessed June 20, 2018. Retrieved from https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-Conditions.
  42. Mental health: A report of the surgeon general. (1999). https://www.profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/NNBBHZ.pdf
  43. Midtbøen, A. H. (2015). The context of employment discrimination: Interpreting the findings of a field experiment. The British Journal of Sociology, 66(1), 193–214.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12098.
  44. Nardodkar, R., Pathare, S., et al. (2016). Legal protection of the right to work and employment for persons with mental health problems: A review of legislation across the world. International Review of Psychiatry, 28(4), 375–384.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2016.1210575.
  45. National Institute of Mental Health. (2017). Health topics. Statistics [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/index.shtml. Accessed October 1, 2018.
  46. National Alliance on Mental Illness. (2017). Mental health by the numbers [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from https://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-By-the-Numbers.
  47. Nevala, N., Pehkonen, I., et al. (2015). Workplace accommodation among persons with disabilities: A systematic review of its effectiveness and barriers or facilitators. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 25(2), 432–448.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-014-9548-z.
  48. Oppenheimer, D. B. (2003). Verdicts matter: An empirical study of California employment discrimination and wrongful discharge verdicts reveals low success rates for women and minorities. UC Davis Law Review, 37(2). Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1877&context=facpubs
  49. Patterson, K. (2012). Accommodating employees with mental impairments: An empirical study of employer practices. International Journal of Private Law, 5(1), 40–60.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPL.2012.043900.
  50. Postol, L. P. (2016). Ada open issues: Transfers to vacant positions, leaves of absence, telecommuting, and other accommodation issues. Elon Law Review, 8(1), 61–106 https://www.heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/elonlr8&i=65.
  51. Prince, M. J. (2017). Persons with invisible disabilities and workplace accommodation: Findings from a scoping literature review Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 46(1), 75–86.  https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-160844
  52. Richardson, R. E., Hall, R., & Joiner, S. (2016). Workplace bullying in the United States: An analysis of state court cases. Cogent Business & Management, 3(1), 1256594. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23311975.2016.1256594
  53. Rothstein, M. A. (2015). Innovations of the Americans With Disabilities Act: Confronting disability discrimination in employment. JAMA, 313(22), 2221–2222.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.3417.
  54. Ruggs, E. N., Hebl, M. R., Law, C., Cox, C. B., Roehling, M. V., & Weiner, R. L. (2013). Gone fishing: I–o psychologists' missed opportunities to understand marginalized employees' experiences with discrimination. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6(1), 39–60.  https://doi.org/10.1111/iops.12007.
  55. Santuzzi, A. M., Waltz, P. R., Finkelstein, L. M., & Rupp, D. E. (2014). Invisible disabilities: Unique challenges for employees and organizations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 7(2), 204–219.  https://doi.org/10.1111/iops.12134.
  56. Schneider, E. M., & Gertner, N. (2013). 'Only procedural': Thoughts on the substantive law dimensions of preliminary procedural decisions in employment discrimination cases. New York Law School Law Review, 57, 767. Retrieved from https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2310626
  57. Scott, H. (2009). What is grounded theory? Retrieved from http://www.groundedtheoryonline.com/what-is-grounded-theory/
  58. Snyder, L. A., Carmichael, J. S., Blackwell, L. V., et al. (2010). Perceptions of discrimination and justice among employees with disabilities. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 22(1), 5–19.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-009-9107-5.
  59. Ståhl, C., MacEachen, E., & Lippel, K. (2014). Ethical perspectives in work disability prevention and return to work: Toward a common vocabulary for analyzing stakeholders’ actions and interactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(2), 237–250.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1661-y.
  60. Statistics. (2018) Accessed June 20, 2018. Retrieved from https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/index.shtml
  61. Terpstra, D. E., & Honorée, A. L. (2016). Differences in the nature of employment discrimination litigation between private sector organizations and public sector organizations. International Journal of Discrimination and the Law, 16(4), 200–213.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1358229116645677.
  62. Villanueva-Flores, M., Valle, R., & Bornay-Barrachina, M. (2017). Perceptions of discrimination and distributive injustice among people with physical disabilities: In jobs, compensation and career development. Personnel Review, 46(3), 680–698.  https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2015-0098.
  63. Von Schrader, S., Malzer, V., & Bruyère, S. (2014). Perspectives on disability disclosure: The importance of employer practices and workplace climate. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 26(4), 237–255.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-013-9227-9.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DePaul UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations