Despite recent record employment gains for disabled employees in the U.S., the hiring of disabled people continues to be a pain point for both candidates and companies. Disabled job candidates want to know where to work and whom to trust, but they must also manage concerns about bias and when to disclose the need for accommodations. They are advised to “control the narrative” and build trust by sharing their stories and needs, but at the same time to withhold any information that might be used against them until employment is secured and firmer legal protections are in place.

Since the 1960s, federal and state governments and private-sector companies have used supplier diversity initiatives to ensure their supply chains include businesses owned by traditionally economically disadvantaged or underrepresented groups. Originally concentrated on racial and ethnic minority groups, programs have expanded to include businesses owned by women, veterans, LGBTQ+ individuals, and, in some cases, people with disabilities. This study investigates the extent to which disability is included in supplier diversity initiatives of Fortune 500 companies.

Summary. How can companies do a better job of attracting disabled people to apply for jobs and convincing them that they truly are an equitable employer? And how can job candidates feel more comfortable disclosing a need for accommodation? The authors’ research over the last five years offers a number of paths forward for both sides. First, employers can move away from legalistic boilerplates and use more heartfelt language about their commitment to DEI. But they also need to back up their words with concrete evidence, such as a personal message from the CEO; testimonials from disabled employees; statistics on the hiring, promotion, accommodation fulfillment, and retention of disabled employees; or awards recognizing the company’s accomplishments in the DEI space. Their research also suggests job candidates emphasize their hard skills during interviews and delay the conversation about accommodations until they’ve built up more of a rapport with the hiring team.

This article examines ways COVID-19 health surveillance and algorithmic decision-making (“ADM”) are creating and exacerbating workplace inequalities that impact post-treatment cancer survivors. Cancer survivors’ ability to exercise their right to work often is limited by prejudice and health concerns. While cancer survivors can ostensibly elect not to disclose to their employers when they are receiving treatments or if they have a history of treatment, the use of ADM increases the chances that employers will learn of their situation regardless of their preferences. Moreover, absent significant change, inequalities may persist or even expand.

Given the training and experience of lawyers, we assumed that a study of lawyers’ willingness to disclose disability in the workplace would provide an example of the actions of a group knowledgeable about disability law. The current study accounts for the effect of visibility of disability, onset and type of disability, and whether the lawyer has made an accommodation request. We also investigate the role of other individual characteristics, such as sexual orientation, gender identity, race/ethnicity, age, and job-related characteristics, in willingness to disclose.