Misconceptions, Half-Truths and Confusion: The Need for Clarity and Communication in Rights for Persons with Disabilities in Canada’s Labour Market
Listen to this article as an audio recording
Persons with disabilities represent a diverse and significant portion of the Canadian labour force, yet their workforce participation remains lower than that of individuals without disabilities. As industries face growing labour shortages and an aging workforce approaches retirement, it has never been more important to engage and support individuals with disabilities in the labour force.
The reality of labour market gaps for persons with disabilities
Rights and accommodations for people with disabilities in Canada play a crucial role in enabling them to fully participate in the workforce.
Despite the policies and programs that are in place, research by the Labour Market Information Council (LMIC) and others shows that persons with disabilities are not fully benefiting from the labour market and that substantial gaps in employment continue to persist. This indicates a need for a better understanding of their experiences, including how they perceive and engage with their rights in the labour market.
For this article, we took a deeper dive into the perceptions of labour market rights and accommodations for people in Canada with disabilities. We found misconceptions and a lack of clarity and awareness around many of the rights and accommodations available to persons with disabilities.
The 2022 Canadian Survey on Disability found that 27% of Canadians aged 15 years and older, or about eight million individuals, reported having one or more disabilities that limited them in their daily activities. For these individuals (and all Canadians), the confusion around rights and accommodations matters. With this in mind, understanding the labour market experiences of persons with disabilities represents an urgent and growing concern for policy-makers, employers, and, job-seekers.
As part of LMIC’s continued research on disabilities in the workplace, we conducted a study that provides a thorough review of the rights and accommodations available to persons with disabilities in the labour market. It documents the recent experiences of individuals with disabilities, the accommodations available to employees and employers, and the legal standing of persons with disabilities in the labour market. Finally, it includes conversations with Canadians to discern their knowledge, awareness and understanding of their rights in the workplace in the context of disability.
Our research revealed a series of gaps in the labour market outcomes of people with disabilities, as well as profound and troubling gaps in their awareness and knowledge of—and engagement with—the rights available to them. There is room for improvement among all interested parties.
Our approach to understanding disability in the workforce
Our study explored the following questions:
We used a mixed-methods approach to address these questions, incorporating qualitative and quantitative data collection methods. Both structured interviews and online surveys were used. This blended-research design (Thomas, 2003) allowed for a comprehensive analysis of participants’ experiences and understanding of workplace accommodations (WPAs) for persons with disabilities. The study also drew on a review of relevant literature and a scan of WPA regulations across Canada’s provinces and territories.
Structured interviews
A total of 45 individuals from across Canada participated in structured, in-person or online face-to-face interviews. Our sample focused on employed adults, who were recruited to the study through snowball sampling, a referral-based method common in qualitative research that uses participants’ networks to identify other eligible respondents. Snowball sampling was chosen because it is a purposeful method that relies on networking and referral, ensuring that the sample is diverse in experiences and perspectives.
The structured interviews used a predetermined set of open-ended questions, which were asked verbatim and in a specific order. The wording of any follow-up probes was standardized, and interviewers adhered strictly to the script to ensure consistency across interviews. Fully structured interviews were chosen for their advantages in consistency and comparability; they allowed for the direct comparison of participants’ responses, improved the reliability of the data, and facilitated ease of analysis and replication.
Quantitative survey
To explore what Canadians know about their rights to disability accommodations in the workplace, we developed an online quantitative survey. A thorough review of literature about disability rights and WPAs in the Canadian context informed the development of the survey. Participants were eligible if they self-identified as adults currently living in Canada. The survey was available in English and French. The survey included mostly closed-ended questions, asking respondents about their awareness of specific laws, such as whether they knew of legislation that protects WPAs for Canadians with disabilities or which types of employers are required to provide them.
The survey was distributed via LMIC’s social media channels, and responses were collected using the online platform Sogolytics. A total of 111 responses were received.
Qualitative survey
To address the second research question (regarding how Canadians understand the legal and practical implications of workplace disability rights and possible misconceptions or gaps), a fully qualitative survey was used. This method prioritized qualitative research values and techniques. The survey consisted of open-ended questions designed to elicit rich, detailed narratives from participants. Unlike quantitative surveys, qualitative surveys allow respondents to express their thoughts in their own words, yielding complex, in-depth accounts and perspectives.
The qualitative survey was administered via email to participants who had been recruited through snowball sampling. A total of 200 surveys were distributed, and 165 responses were received. Although participants were geographically diverse, the majority were from Ontario, British Columbia or Alberta. There were very few respondents from the territories. The responses provided insights into participants’ subjective experiences and revealed common misconceptions, knowledge gaps, and patterns of understanding with respect to workplace disability accommodations.
Analysis
Data from the structured interviews and the qualitative survey was analyzed using thematic analysis, while the quantitative survey data was analyzed through descriptive statistics to identify patterns in awareness and understanding. This mixed-methods approach enabled a comprehensive analysis of Canadians’ knowledge, experiences and perceptions of disability rights in the workplace.
The alarming gap in workforce participation for Canadians with disabilities
Employment offers social and economic inclusion, structure and purpose. Unfortunately, Canadians with disabilities experience persistent employment gaps. They are significantly less likely than those without disabilities to obtain and sustain employment (Shahidi et al., 2023). The 2022 Canadian Survey on Disability1 showed that the employment rate for individuals aged 16 to 64 years with disabilities was 65.1%; in comparison, for those without disabilities, it was 80.1%. The unemployment rate underscores these disparities. For persons aged 16 to 64 years with disabilities, the unemployment rate in 2022 was 6.9%, nearly double the rate for those without disabilities (3.8%).
Employment rates varied significantly by age group
In the 2022 survey, an employment rate gap between persons with and without disabilities was evident across all age groups. Youth (aged 16 to 24 years) experienced an employment rate gap, although it was smaller. In this age group, 54.4% of those with disabilities were employed, compared to 64.0% of those without disabilities. Among those in the core working age group (aged 25 to 54 years), the employment rate for persons with disabilities was 73.9%, 14.5 percentage points lower than the 88.4% for those without disabilities.
Older adults (aged 55 to 64 years) also faced a pronounced employment gap. The employment rate for persons with disabilities was 51.1%, 17.0 percentage points lower than the 68.1% for their counterparts without disabilities. Lower labour force participation rates among people with disabilities in the older age group, combined with a higher likelihood of leaving their last job due to illness or disability (18.0% compared to 2.3% of those without disabilities), contributed to these disparities.
Employment rates also varied significantly by the severity of disability
In 2022, 76.6% of individuals with mild disabilities were employed, compared to 64.5% of those with moderate disabilities, 50.4% of those with severe disabilities, and 26.8% of those with very severe disabilities. This trend underscores the critical impact that the severity of disability has on employment outcomes.
Employment trends for Canadians with different types of disabilities
Different types of disabilities are associated with varying degrees of employment challenges. Some groups, particularly those with mental health–related, learning or developmental disabilities, face disproportionately higher barriers to entering and staying in the workforce.
In 2022, those with pain-related disabilities (the most common disability type) had an employment rate of 46%, close to the overall average of Canadians with disabilities. In contrast, individuals with seeing disabilities had a lower employment rate (37.6%), and those with mobility disabilities saw a similar gap (only 36% were employed). Those with mental and/or psychological disabilities had an employment rate of just 35.9% and a high unemployment rate of 19.6%. People with learning disabilities also had a low employment rate (28.8%), while those with developmental disabilities faced the greatest barriers—only 22.3% were employed, and the unemployment rate was 21.1%.
These findings highlight the need for targeted efforts to address the employment barriers faced by people with disabilities in Canada. As disability rates increase, particularly among working-age populations, there is a pressing need for policies and practices that support the inclusion and participation of individuals with disabilities in the workforce.
The survey’s findings also raise questions about why these gaps exist. In order to develop our understanding of this issue, we turn next to exploring the existing legal requirements that support labour market participation for persons with disabilities.
Legal framework
Despite the significant employment gap between persons with and without disabilities, a significant number of individuals with disabilities in Canada have the potential to participate in the workforce. According to the CSD, as of 2022, more than 741,000 persons with disabilities aged 25 to 64 years could potentially be employed in an inclusive and accessible labour market. These individuals represent a significant untapped resource because their ability to work often hinges on the availability of appropriate accommodations.
In Canada, employers have a legal duty to accommodate employees with limitations that result from a medical condition or other form of disability. This obligation is set out in human rights legislation in every Canadian jurisdiction. Most employers in Canada are subject to the human rights legislation in the province(s) in which their employees work. A smaller number of employers (such as banks, airlines and railways) are subject only to federal employment legislation, including the Canadian Human Rights Act. Failure to meet this obligation can lead to liability for discrimination and failure to accommodate.
The Supreme Court of Canada has described the goal of accommodation as ensuring that an employee who is able to work can do so. In practice, this means that the employer must accommodate the employee in a way that, while not causing the employer undue hardship, will ensure that the employee can work. The purpose of the duty to accommodate is to ensure that persons who are otherwise fit to work are not unfairly excluded where working conditions can be adjusted without undue hardship.
How WPAs are implemented in the labour market
WPAs play a major role in the ability of many people with disabilities to participate in the workforce (Anand & Sevak, 2017).
A WPA is a modification to rules, policies, practices or tasks. It can be requested through either formal or informal means to help qualified individuals participate fully in the workplace and perform their job duties safely and effectively (Fuentes & Lindsay, 2023).
A wide range of modifications fall under this umbrella term, including work from home arrangements; digital technologies; changes to organizational policies and practices; changes to physical workspaces; adaptations to equipment, tools or uniforms; flexible work hours or job-sharing; and relocation of the workspace within the workplace (Fuentes & Lindsay, 2023).
WPAs for employees with disabilities have a significant positive impact on individual and organizational outcomes (Man et al., 2020). They help retain valued employees, improve productivity, and increase attendance.
For employees with disabilities, accommodations can offer improved biopsychosocial2 outcomes (including disability prevention, decreased symptoms, increased self-esteem and increased social participation inside or outside of work), foster a more inclusive and supportive environment, and enhance their ability to contribute fully and creatively to the organization. By boosting self-efficacy, accommodations also empower employees to leverage their strengths, driving innovation and overall performance (Wong et al., 2021). Additionally, accommodations reduce the need for costly new hires by eliminating the expenses associated with training replacement staff.
Real stories of accommodation success
Stephanie, a 27-year-old graduate student and teaching assistant at a university in the Greater Toronto Area, explains how her university accommodated her when her mobility became impaired due to a prolapsed disc:
“I was working as a teaching assistant at the university, and my role required me to walk across the entire campus from class to class, which was incredibly taxing. I suffer from a serious back issue, and the constant walking was causing me debilitating pain. When it became too much, I thought I was going to have to quit, but I spoke to my supervisor, and we requested an accommodation from the university. Thankfully, they adjusted my work schedule and assigned all of my tutorials to a single classroom. This accommodation allowed me to continue working without aggravating my condition, and I was able to perform my job to the best of my ability.”
Michael, a 34-year-old recent nursing graduate, shares how the hospital where he works accommodated his bipolar disorder by adjusting his shift schedule, allowing him to manage his condition effectively while continuing his career in health care:
“I had just graduated from nursing school, and—like many new graduates—I was assigned the less desirable night shifts. But I have bipolar II disorder and am an extreme morning type, so I was really concerned about how working nights would affect my mental health. I knew that shift work, especially nights, could trigger both depressive and manic symptoms for me. After a few weeks on the night shift, I noticed my depressive symptoms worsening. I was struggling, so I spoke with my manager and HR, explaining the impact this was having on my well-being. Fortunately, they were understanding and worked with me to adjust my schedule. I was moved to exclusively day and evening shifts, which made all the difference. I was able to manage my condition better and continue working without compromising my health.”
Homer, a 44-year-old computer programmer, faced significant challenges working in traditional office settings because he is on the autism spectrum. But he was able to fully engage in the workforce thanks to his work-from-home accommodation:
“Working from home has truly transformed my working experience and has really let me be in the workforce. It eliminates the need for the preparation and energy that a conventional office setting demands, such as dressing up every day, preparing lunches, and handling social interactions that are very hard for me. I also appreciate having greater control over my communication methods. For example, I can opt for phone calls instead of video calls or face-to-face meetings, which helps me feel more at ease and better able to concentrate. Also, because I am at home and in my own environment, I have opportunities to take the breaks I need for stress management, and I can engage in coping tactics like stimming when needed without interfering with anyone else or their work. I can also completely avoid fluorescent lights this way and I can wear noise-cancelling headphones to manage auditory stimulation. I also have the freedom to adjust the temperature to suit my comfort level.”
Why accommodations matter: Benefits for employers and employees
While workplace accommodation is widely recognized as essential for fostering full employment and equal opportunities for individuals with disabilities (Baldridge & Swift, 2013), focusing exclusively on people with disabilities overlooks the potential impact on other key interested parties, including co-workers without disabilities. While there is a lack of Canadian research on the organizational impacts of WPAs, recent U.S. research funded by the Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy found that, in addition to the retention of skilled employees, accommodations led to cost savings (related to decreased employee turnover) and greater diversity within the workforce. Further, the benefits of WPAs included improved interactions among co-workers, enhanced workplace safety, and elevated morale.
As an example in the Canadian context, Amanda, the owner of a small bakery in Calgary, said:
“As a small business owner, I was really worried when one of my talented bakers came to me asking for accommodations for her chronic illness. I immediately thought about the costs and how it would impact the bakery’s operations, but I was even more concerned about losing her. We sat down and worked together to come up with a plan, including an altered work schedule and modified breaks throughout the day. In the end, it wasn’t as overwhelming as I had imagined, and I’m so glad we did it. Not only did I keep an amazing baker, but she and the rest of the team are happier and more satisfied in their jobs.
“What surprised me the most was the shift in our workplace culture. When another employee became pregnant and was dealing with severe fatigue during her first trimester and toward the end of her pregnancy, we already had a system of accommodation in place. It was easy to offer her the same kinds of adjustments, and the support we now give each other has made our bakery a stronger, more united team.”
These findings suggest that accommodations not only foster an inclusive environment for employees with disabilities but also contribute positively to broader organizational effectiveness and culture.
The WPA gap
Despite the legal duty to accommodate employees’ disabilities, a significant “accommodation gap” remains.
An accommodation gap refers to the shortfall between the accommodations that individuals with disabilities need to participate in the workforce effectively and the WPAs they actually receive (Banks et al., 2013).
According to a 2024 Statistics Canada report, 35.4% of employed Canadians with disabilities reported at least one unmet need for accommodations in 2022 (a decrease from 40.4% in 2017). While the unmet needs for WPAs decreased from 2017 to 2022, considerable needs remain unmet. For instance, in 2022, 39% of employed Canadians with disabilities still faced unmet needs for a computer with specialized software. Notably, just over half (51%) of the needs for technical aids went unfulfilled. Similarly, although the percentage of unmet needs for modified work hours decreased from 26.2% to 22.8%, the number of affected employees remains substantial.
In 2022, unmet needs for WPAs varied significantly across different types of disabilities among employed Canadians aged 25 to 64 years. Employees with cognitive disabilities had the highest percentage of unmet needs, at 43.2%, followed by those with sensory disabilities, at 41.2%. 36.9% of workers with physical disabilities reported that their needs were unmet, while those with mental health–related disabilities classified 35.0% of their needs as unmet. Interestingly, employees with developmental disabilities had a lower percentage of unmet needs (33.3%), despite having a high overall need for accommodations. These differences point to the importance of collecting robust data to discern how disability type can affect work experiences.
Among employed individuals with more severe disabilities, 58% required WPAs—a significantly higher proportion than those with milder disabilities (27.7%). Among those needing accommodations, 41.6% of individuals with more severe disabilities and 31% of those with milder disabilities faced unmet needs for WPAs.
These disparities highlight the persistent challenges that Canadians with disabilities face in obtaining the WPAs they need to fully engage in the workforce. Unmet accommodation needs present a significant barrier to employment opportunities for many individuals with disabilities. This can contribute to substantial social and economic issues, preventing individuals from reaching their full potential, depriving the economy of invaluable contributors, perpetuating poverty, and significantly increasing the burden on social programs (Banks et al., 2013). Addressing the gaps could greatly enhance the inclusion of persons with disabilities in Canada’s labour force.
Canadians experience profound gaps in knowledge and awareness of rights and accommodations.
Given the striking occurrence rates of unmet needs for accommodation, we next explored the informational awareness and perception of rights associated with WPAs. To better understand the situation, we assessed employees’ awareness of their rights to request and receive WPAs for disabilities.
To gain a comprehensive understanding of the general awareness levels of Canadians about WPAs and identify any knowledge gaps or misconceptions, we conducted semi-structured interviews and an online survey with participants from across Canada. This approach allowed us to capture diverse perspectives and gain deeper insights into how well Canadians understand their rights and the process of requesting accommodations in the workplace.
The vast majority (around 75%) of the Canadians we surveyed or interviewed expressed some awareness of the laws in place to protect the rights of employees with disabilities or medical conditions. There was very little variation across jurisdictions.
While many participants were unclear whether these laws were federal (versus provincial or territorial), the majority expressed an understanding that employers in Canada bear a legal obligation to accommodate employees who experience limitations due to medical conditions or disabilities.
While most participants expressed some awareness of the laws protecting the rights of employees with disabilities, several knowledge gaps were identified. For example, there were gaps around the types of employers in Canada that are required to provide accommodations, the extent of the legal obligations of employers, whether employees must disclose their disability prior to hiring in order to have a right to accommodations, and which “types” of disabilities are considered eligible for WPAs. We explore these gaps in more detail below.
What Canadians don’t know about WPAs
Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, the duty to accommodate individuals with disabilities is a legal requirement,3 meaning that employers must reasonably accommodate all employees who fall into the groups protected by human rights legislation, up to the point of undue hardship. While the duty to accommodate applies to all Canadian employers, our research revealed a notable gap in Canadians’ understanding of the types of employers to which this duty applies, along with several misconceptions.
A significant number of respondents believed that only federally regulated employees are entitled to WPAs. This would include employees working for organizations under federal jurisdiction, such as banks, most federal Crown corporations, radio and television broadcasters, and interprovincial transportation organizations.
Additionally, many respondents mistakenly believed that the duty to accommodate is restricted to employers with a specific number of employees, with a common misconception that only those with more than 50 employees are required to provide WPAs. There was also a significant misconception among study participants that only public sector employers are required to provide accommodations as part of their duty to ensure equal access to employment. This led many participants to believe that private industries do not share the same obligation to accommodate individuals with disabilities or medical conditions. While our study cannot ascertain if and how this directly affects the labour market gaps we identified, this raises alarming questions about how these misconceptions may influence job applications and labour market participation by sector.
Canadians aren’t always sure about what accommodations they are entitled to from their employers
In Canada, an employer’s duty to accommodate is not absolute: they are required to accommodate an employee’s needs only to the point of “undue hardship.” According to the Canadian Centre of Occupational Health and Safety, employers are required to make every reasonable effort, short of undue hardship, to accommodate a worker. There is no precise legal definition of undue hardship, nor is there a standard formula for determining undue hardship. The point of undue hardship will vary in each situation. Typically, undue hardship arises when an employer can no longer meet the employee’s needs because of factors related to health, safety or cost. Claims of undue hardship must be supported with facts and evidence, not assumptions or opinions. While some degree of hardship is generally expected when fulfilling the duty to accommodate, an employer’s duty ends when reasonable measures of accommodation have been exhausted and only unreasonable or impracticable options remain.
Many of our participants expressed the misconception that employers are not obligated to provide accommodations if doing so results in any additional costs or interferes with another employee’s work. This raises serious questions about how this misconception may affect decision-making for people with disabilities when weighing if or how they might participate in the labour market and how to engage with their employers.
Disclosure of disability to employers is a point of confusion for many Canadians
The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on disability or medical condition in all aspects of the employment relationship. This includes job applications, recruitment, training, transfers, promotions, apprenticeship terms, dismissals, layoffs, and situations where an employee returns to work after a disability-related absence. Accordingly, employees can choose to disclose their disability-related needs or medical condition and request accommodation at any point in the employment relationship, including during the interview process, after receiving a job offer, or at any time during their tenure with the company.
While employees can request accommodations at any point during their employment, many participants in this research mistakenly believed that, to be eligible for accommodations, individuals must disclose their disability or medical condition before they are hired. There was a common belief that this disclosure was required unless the employee became injured or disabled on the job, in which case they could request accommodations related to the workplace injury. Our study cannot discern how or if this misconception dissuades or affects workforce participation or experiences, but it raises troubling questions that warrant future investigation.
There are misconceptions about how disability type affects eligibility for accommodations
Disability in Canada is interpreted broadly under the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) and has been shaped extensively through case law. While the CHRA provides a definition of disability, it is not exhaustive, encompassing a wide range of physical, mental, intellectual, cognitive, learning, communication, sensory, and functional impairments. These may be permanent, temporary, episodic, visible, or invisible, and individuals with related needs may be legally entitled to workplace accommodation pursuant to the duty to accommodate as outlined in the CHRA.
The study uncovered significant gaps in participants’ understanding of which disabilities or medical conditions qualify employees for WPAs. Many believed that only physical disabilities, including pain-related conditions (e.g., arthritis or traumatic injuries) or disabilities affecting mobility, flexibility and/or dexterity (e.g., amputations, limb differences, or the use of wheelchairs, back braces or leg braces) would make a person eligible for accommodations.
Another common misconception identified was the belief that employers are not required to provide WPA for needs related to mental health conditions, such as anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, depression and schizophrenia. Additionally, many participants thought that employers are not required to accommodate needs related to learning differences, which affect a person’s ability to learn, read or process information and include such conditions as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dyscalculia and dyslexia.
Addressing the challenges ahead for inclusive employment
This article shares some experiences of people living with disabilities in Canada and highlights the significant gaps in labour market participation they face—which increase with the severity of disability. While Canada has a strong legal framework for workplace accommodation, there are still knowledge gaps regarding worker’s rights to accommodation and employer obligations.
Our work reveals that, when Canadians were asked to share their experiences and perceptions of their rights, confusion and misconceptions were relatively common. Many Canadians involved in this study were unclear about employers’ responsibilities, the process of disclosing a need for a disability-related accommodation, and whether persons with invisible disabilities have a right to workplace accommodations.
Although our study can’t definitively state that these issues directly contribute to some of the labour gaps we observe, it does raise questions about how these misconceptions may be contributing to the persistent inequities experienced by persons with disabilities. Additionally, questions arise about how these misconceptions affect WPAs, productivity, inclusion and career progression.
As LMIC has emphasized, understanding the labour market experience of people with disabilities in Canada requires the regular collection of robust and accessible data that reflects the nuances and diversity within disability communities across Canada.
It’s clear that significant work must be done to improve the ability of people with disabilities in Canada to participate in the labour market. The inequities they face represent lost economic potential for all Canadians.
To address these challenges, policy-makers, employers, people with disabilities and advocacy groups must work together. Each of these groups has an important role to play in the conversation and in initiatives to promote awareness of rights and obligations with regard to disability-related workplace accommodation. Meaningful engagement based on the principle of ‘nothing without us’ should be the foundation for developing knowledge and spreading awareness of the employment rights of people with disabilities.
Finally, in addition to collective consultations, improving the quality and accessibility of data—especially by disability type—will enhance policy decisions and program development to better support Canadians with disabilities.
These efforts will enable fuller labour market participation for Canadians with disabilities and, in doing so, strengthen the economy.
Acknowledgements
This article was prepared by Dr. Suzanne Spiteri, research lead at LMIC.
For more information about this report, please contact research@lmic-cimt.ca.
Endnotes
1 The Canadian Survey on Disability (CSD) collects data on Canadians aged 15 years and older whose daily activities are restricted by a long-term condition or health-related issue. This survey is conducted every five years and provides insights into the experiences and needs of individuals living with disabilities across the country. The CSD uses Disability Screening Questions (DSQ) to identify persons with one or more disability. The DSQs measure 10 types of disability that are grouped into the following categories: sensory (seeing and hearing), physical (mobility, flexibility, dexterity and pain-related), cognitive (learning and memory), mental health–related, and developmental.
2 The term “biopsychosocial” refers to an approach that takes into account the interconnected roles of biological, psychological and social factors in understanding health, illness and the provision of health care (Frankel, Quill & McDaniel, 2003).
3 The duty to accommodate also applies to all grounds covered by the Canadian Human Rights Act: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability, gender identity or expression, genetic characteristics and conviction for which a pardon has been granted.
Suzanne Spiteri
Research Lead
Dr. Suzanne Spiteri is a sociologist with several years of experience in both qualitative and mixed-methods data analysis. She leads labour-related projects that explore labour market tightness and the labour market outcomes of under-represented groups.
References
Anand, P., & Sevak, P. (2017). The role of workplace accommodations in the employment of people with disabilities. IZA Journal of Labor Policy, 6(12), 1–20.
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.
Banks, K., Chaykowski, R. P., & Slotsve, G. A. (2013). The disability accommodation gap in Canadian workplaces: What does it mean for law, policy, and an aging population? Canadian Labour and Employment Law Journal, 17(2), 295–344.
Frankel, R. M., Quill, T. E., & McDaniel, S. H. (Eds.). (2003). The biopsychosocial approach: Past, present, and future. The University of Rochester Press.
Fuentes, K., & Lindsay, S. (2023). Workplace accommodations during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review of the impacts and implications for people with disabilities. Work, 74(2), 381–406.
Man, X., Zhu, X., & Sun, C. (2020). The positive effect of workplace accommodation on creative performance of employees with and without disabilities. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1217.
Shahidi, F. V., Jetha, A., Kristman, V., Smith, P. M., & Gignac, M. A. M. (2023). The employment quality of persons with disabilities: Findings from a national survey. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 33(4), 785–795.
Thomas, R. M. (2003). Blending qualitative and quantitative research methods in theses and dissertations. Corwin press.
Wong, J., Kallish, N., Crown, D., Capraro, P., Trierweiler, R., Wafford, Q. E., Tiema-Benson, L., Hassan, S., Engel, E., Tamayo, C., & Heinemann, A. W. (2021). Job accommodations, return to work and job retention of people with physical disabilities: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 31(3), 474–490.