Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 507–519 | Cite as

Socially Constructed Hierarchies of Impairments: The Case of Australian and Irish Workers’ Access to Compensation for Injuries

Article

Abstract

Objectives: Socially constructed hierarchies of impairment complicate the general disadvantage experienced by workers with disabilities. Workers with a range of abilities categorized as a “disability” are likely to experience less favourable treatment at work and have their rights to work discounted by laws and institutions, as compared to workers without disabilities. Value judgments in workplace culture and local law mean that the extent of disadvantage experienced by workers with disabilities additionally will depend upon the type of impairment they have. Rather than focusing upon the extent and severity of the impairment and how society turns an impairment into a recognized disability, this article aims to critically analyse the social hierarchy of physical versus mental impairment. Methods: Using legal doctrinal research methods, this paper analysis how Australian and Irish workers’ compensation and negligence laws regard workers with mental injuries and impairments as less deserving of compensation and protection than like workers who have physical and sensory injuries or impairments. Results: This research finds that workers who acquire and manifest mental injuries and impairments at work are less able to obtain compensation and protection than workers who have developed physical and sensory injuries of equal or lesser severity. Organizational cultures and governmental laws and policies that treat workers less favourably because they have mental injuries and impairments perpetuates unfair and artificial hierarchies of disability attributes. Conclusions: We conclude that these “sanist” attitudes undermine equal access to compensation for workplace injury as prohibited by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Keywords

Workers compensation Mental disability Discrimination Hierarchy of impairments 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This line of study was supported in part by grants from the Administration on Community Living (ACL) and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR), in the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services for the NIDILRR Southeast ADA Center Grant #90DP0090-01-00, the NIDILRR Community Living and Supported Decision-Making DRRP Grant #90DP0076, and the NIDILIRR Americans with Disabilities Act Participatory Action Research Consortium (ADA-PARC) Grant #H133A120008; and, by the Office for Disability and Employment Policy (ODEP), in the U.S. Department of Labor. For additional information on these projects and related funding, see http://bbi.syr.edu. Valuable assistance and comments were received from Joseph Lelliott, Graeme Orr and Shivaun Quinlivan. The program of research herein is supported, in part, by grants to the Burton Blatt Institute at Syracuse University (For additional information on BBI’s funding sources, see http://bbi.syr.edu); Special Studies Program funding from the TC Beirne School of Law; and from the visiting fellow program at the Centre for Disability Law and Policy, National University Ireland, Galway, IE.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Paul Harpur, Ursula Connolly and Peter Blanck declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Blanck P. Introduction to the social construction of disability: historical, contemporary, and comparative views. J Transnational Law Contemp Probl. 2001;11:i–ii.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blanck P, Flynn E, editors. Routledge handbook of disability law and human rights. London: Taylor and Francis Group; 2017.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blanck P. The first “A” in the ADA: and 25 more “A”s toward equality for Americans with disabilities. Inclusion. 2016;4(1):46–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harpur P. Embracing the new disability rights paradigm: the importance of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Disabil Soc. 2012;27(1):1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harpur P. Discrimination, copyright and equality: law opening the e-book for the print disabled. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arnold B, Easteal PL, Easteal S, Rice S. It just doesn’t add up: ADHD/ADD, the workplace and discrimination. Melbourne Univ Law Rev. 2010;34:359–391.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blanck P. e-Quality: the struggle for web accessibility by persons with cognitive disabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blanck P. e-Quality web accessibility and people with cognitive disabilities. Inclusion. 2015;3(2):75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blanck P. Civil war pensions and disability. Ohio St Law J. 2001;62:109–249.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marti MW, Blanck P. Attitudes, behavior, and the ADA. In: Blanck P, editor. Employment, disability, and the Americans with disabilities act: issues in law, public policy, and research. Evanston: Northwestern University Press; 2000. pp. 356–384.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Areheart BA. Disability trouble. Yale Law Policy Rev. 2011;29(1):348–387.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harpur P, Suzor N. The Paradigm shift in realising the right to read: how e-Book libraries are enabling in the university sector. Disabil Soc. 2014;29(10):1658–1671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: resolution/adopted by the General Assembly, 24 January 2007, A/RES/61/106. http://www.refworld.org/docid/45f973632.html. Accessed 20 Nov 2017.
  14. 14.
    Harpur P, Suzor N. Copyright protections and disability rights: turning the page to a new international paradigm. Univ NSW Law J. 2013;36(3):745–778.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bagenstos SR. Subordination, stigma, and “disability”. Va Law Rev. 2000;86(3):397–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Harpur P, Douglas H. Disability and domestic violence: protecting survivors’ human rights. Griffith Law Rev. 2015;23(3):405–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kahn Best R, Hamilton Krieger L, Edelman LB, Scott RE. Multiple disadvantages: an empirical test of intersectionality theory in EEO litigation. Law Soc Rev. 2011;45(4):991–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Solanke I. Infusing the silos in the Equality Act 2010 with synergy. Ind Law J. 2011;40(4):336–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harpur P, James P. The shift in regulatory focus from employment to work relationships: critiquing reforms to Australian and UK occupational safety and health laws. Comp Labor Law Policy J. 2014;36(1):111–130.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harpur P. From disability to ability: changing the phrasing of the debate. Disabil Soc. 2012;27(3):325–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schweik S. The ugly laws: disability in public. New York: New York University Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Harpur P. Nothing about us without us: The UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Harpur P. Time to be heard: how advocates can use the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities to drive change. Valparaiso Univ Law Rev. 2011;45:1271–1296.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Byeff Korn J. Crazy (Mental illness under the ADA). Univ Mich J Law Reform. 2003;36:585–652.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Blanck PD, Sandler LA, Schmeling JL, Schartz HA. The emerging workforce of entrepreneurs with disabilities: preliminary study of entrepreneurship in Iowa. Iowa L Rev. 1999;85(5):1583–1644.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hoffman LC. An employment opportunity or a discrimination dilemma? Sheltered workshops and the employment of the disabled. Univ PA J Law Soc Change. 2013;16:151–179.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    McCallum R. In search of origins: blindness in history and law. Aust Bar Rev. 2010;33:146–159.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Blanck P, Martinis J. “The right to make choices”: national resource center for supported decision-making. Inclusion. 2015;3(1):24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Logue L, Blanck P. Race, ethnicity, and disability: veterans and benefits in post-civil war America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mahomed F. Stigma on the basis of psychosocial disability: a structural human rights violation. J S Afr Hum Rights Law. 2016;32(3):490–509.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Perlin ML. A prescription for dignity: rethinking criminal justice and mental disability law. Burlington: Ashgate; 2013.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Perlin ML, Lynch AJ. Sexuality, disability, and the law: beyond the last frontier? New York: Springer; 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Perlin ML. On “sanism.”. SMU Law Rev. 1992;46:373–407.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Perlin ML. Where the winds hit heavy on the borderline: mental disability law, theory and practice, us and them. Loyola Los Angeles Law Rev. 1998;31:775–794.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Smith M. The duty to accommodate drug and alcohol addiction in the workplace. In: Malhotra R, editor. Disability politics in a global economy: essays in honour of Marta Russell. Abingdon: Routledge; 2010. pp. 64–83.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dhanda A, Narayan T. Mental health and human rights. Lancet. 2007;370:1197–1198.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Blanck PD, Millender M. Before civil rights: civil war pensions and the politics of disability in America. Alabama Law Rev. 2000;52(1):1–50.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wildeman S. Protecting rights and building capacities: challenges to global mental health policy in light of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Am Soc Law Med Ethics. 2013;41(1):48–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stapleton J. In restraint of tort. In: Birks P, editor. The frontiers of liability. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1994. pp. 83–102.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ahuja J. Liability for psychological and psychiatric harm: the road to recovery. Med Law Rev. 2015;23(1):27–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Brooks A. Guidebook to Australian occupational health and safety laws. 3rd ed. Sydney: CCH Australia; 1988.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    O’Neill S. Toward national workplace safety and workers’ compensation systems: a chronology. Commonwealth of Australia Parliamentary Library. 2011. http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/eco/chron_ohs.pdf. Accessed 1 Sept 2017.
  43. 43.
    Lamontagne A, Keegel T, Louie A, Ostry A. Job stress as a preventable upstream determinant of common mental disorders: a review for practitioners and policy-makers. Adv Mental Health. 2010;9(1):17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Safe Work Australia. The incidence of accepted workers’ compensation claims for mental stress in Australia. 2013. https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/system/files/documents/1702/the-incidence-accepted-wc-claims-mental-stress-australia.pdf. Accessed 1 Sept 2017.
  45. 45.
    Safe Work Australia. The national return to work survey: the role of the employer and workplace Australia and New Zealand. 2013. https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/system/files/documents/1702/national-rtws-role-employer-workplace-2013.pdf. Accessed 1 Sept 2017.
  46. 46.
    Fair Work Ombudsman. Workers compensation. http://www.fairwork.gov.au/leave/workers-compensation. Accessed 1 Sept 2017.
  47. 47.
    Johnstone R, Bluff E, Clayton A. Work health and safety law and policy. 3rd ed. New York: Thomson Reuters; 2012.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Personal Injuries Assessment Board. Annual Report 2015. 2015. http://www.injuriesboard.ie/eng/News-Information/Publications/Personal-Injuries-Assessment-Board-Annual-Report-2015.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2017.
  49. 49.
    Connolly U, Quinlivan S. Accessing justice in cases of occupational bullying in Ireland. Irish Community Dev Law J. 2016;5(1):18–32.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    McMahon B, Binchy W. Law of torts. 4th ed. London: Bloomsbury; 2013.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Teff H. Causing psychiatric and emotional harm: reshaping the boundaries of legal liability. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2009.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mulheron R. Rewriting the requirement for a ‘recognized psychiatric injury’ in negligence claims. Oxford J Legal Stud. 2012;3(2):77–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Handford P. Liability for work stress: Koehler ten years on. Univ W Aust Law Rev. 2015;39(2):150–179.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Commonwealth of Australia. Australian review of the law of negligence final report. 2002. https://ama.com.au/sites/default/files/documents/ipp_report.pdf. Accessed 1 Sept 2017.
  55. 55.
    Chan G. Koehler v. Cerebos (Australia LTD): work stress and negligently inflicted psychiatric illnesses. Univ NSW Law J. 2005;28(3):821–830.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Harpur P, French B. Is it safer without you? Analysing the intersection between work health and safety and anti-discrimination laws. J Health Saf Environ. 2014;30:167–183.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hendricks DJ, Batiste L, Hirsh A, Dowler D, Schartz H, Blanck P. Cost and effectiveness of accommodations in the workplace: preliminary results of a nationwide study. Disabil Stud Q. 2005;25(4):12–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Schur L, Nishii L, Adya M, Kruse D, Bruyere S, Blanck P. Accommodating employees with and without disabilities. Hum Resour Manage. 2014;53(4):593–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Schartz H, Hendricks DJ, Blanck P. Workplace accommodations: evidence-based outcomes. Work. 2006;27(4):345–354.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Lawson A. Disability equality, reasonable accommodation and the avoidance of ill-treatment in places of detention: the role of supranational monitoring and inspection bodies. Int J Hum Rights. 2012;16(6):845–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Munro M. Define acceptable: how can we ensure that treatment for mental disorder in detention is consistent with the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities? Int J Hum Rights. 2012;16(6):902–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TC Beirne School of LawThe University of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia
  2. 2.Burton Blatt InstituteSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA
  3. 3.School of LawNational University of IrelandGalwayIreland
  4. 4.Centre for Disability Law and PolicyNational University of IrelandGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations