Abadie, Alberto, Alexis Diamond, and Jens Hainmueller. 2010. Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimatint the Effect of California's Tobacco Control Program. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105: 493--505.
Acemoglu, Daron, and Joshua D. Angrist. 2001. Consequences of Employment Protection? The Case of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Journal of Political Economy, 109(5): 915--957.
- After the 2007 amendment, Washington law stated that: `Disability' means the presence of a sensory, mental, or physical impairment that: (i) Is medically cognizable or diagnosable; or (ii) Exists as a record or history; or (iii) Is perceived to exist whether or not it exists in fact. (Wash. Rev. Code 49.60.040 (7)(a)) Appendix 4: Constructing Conley-Taber Confidence Intervals This appendix provides additional details on my construction of Conley-Taber confidence intervals.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Appendix 2: Implications of the Work-Limited Disability Measure Overlap Between the Work-Limited Measure and the Definition of Disability after the PKP Act As discussed by Burkhauser et al. (2002), there is no one definition of disability. Different measures capture different (but overlapping) groups. The ideal disability measure to quantify the impacts of the PKP Act would be to use a disability measure that closely matches the definition of disability in FEHA after the PKP Act, but not before. Thus, those covered by the measure are not covered by FEHA before the PKP Act, but they are after. This would allow for the most accurate estimate of the effect of the PKP Act on the affected population. In my case, as is the case with other studies in this literature, the measure of disability does not perfectly overlap with the treatment group.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Appendix 3: Details on Law Change Controls There were three states other than California that changed their disability discrimination laws during the sample period of 1994 to 2007, with these changes being non-trivial but less important than California's PKP Act. These changes occurred in Maine in 2006 and 2007, Rhode Island in 2000, Washington in 2007. Because of these changes, I include four control variables: one each for Washington and Rhode Island, and two for Maine, with each variable equaling one when that state has the new law in effect.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Beegle, Kathleen, and Wendy A. Stock. 2003. The Labor Market Effects of Disability Discrimination Laws. Journal of Human Resources, 38: 806--859.
Bertrand, Marianne, Esther Duflo, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2004. How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(1): 249--275.
Bloch, Farrell. 1994. Antidiscrimination Law and Minority Employment: Recruitment Practices and Regulatory Constraints. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
- Burgdorf, Robert L. 1997. Substantially Limited: Protection from Disability Discrimination: the Special Treatment Model and Misconstructions of the Definition of Disability. Villanova Law Review, 42(2): 409--586.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Burkhauser, Richard V., Andrew J. Houtenville, and David C. Wittenburg. 2001. A User Guide to Current Statistics on the Employment of People with Disabilities. Paper presented at the Conference on The Persistence of Low Employment Rates of People With DisabilitiesCause and Policy Implications, October 18-19, 2001, Washington, DC, Draft 10/03/01.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Burkhauser, Richard V., Mary C Daly, Andrew J. Houtenville, and Nigar Nargis. 2002. SelfReported Work-Limitation Data: What They Can and Cannot Tell Us. Demography, 39: 541--555.
- Byron, Deborah A. 2012. Disability Discrimination and the Obligation to Provide Reasonable Accommodation: the Interactive Process. Retrieved May 1, 2015, from http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/160950/Discrimination+Disability+Sexual+ Harassment/Disability+Discrimination+And+The+Obligation+To+Provide+Reason able+Accommodation+The+Interactive+Process.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Colker, Ruth. 1999. The Americans with Disabilities Act: A Windfall for Defendants. Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review, 34: 99--162.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Conley, Timothy G., and Christopher R. Taber. 2011. Inference with “Difference in Differences †with a Small Number of Policy Changes. Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(1): 113--125.
- Daly, Mary C, and Fred Furlong. 2002. Profile of a Recession - The U.S. and California. San Francisco, CA: Federal Reserve Board of San Francisco Economic Letter #2002-04.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
DeLeire, Thomas. 2000. The Wage and Employment Effects of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Journal of Human Resources, 35(4): 693--715.
Farber, Henry S., and Robert G. Valletta. 2015. Do Extended Unemployment Benefits Lengthen Unemployment Spells? Evidence from Recent Cycles in the U.S. Labor Market. Forthcoming in Journal of Human Resources.
- For the DD (Equation 1), I follow the procedure outlined by Conley and Taber (2011) exactly, using their code and only making minor modifications (e.g., adding sampling weights).
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Harned, Karen R., and Katelynn K. McBride. 2010. The Amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act: Bad for Business, Boon for the Disabled? Engage: The Journal of the Federalist Society Practice Groups, 11(3): 99--103.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Hotchkiss, Julie L. 2004. A Closer Look at the Employment Impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Journal of Human Resources, 39(4): 887--911.
- Houtenville, Andrew J., and Richard V. Burkhauser. 2004. Did the Employment of People with Disabilities Decline in the 1990s , and was the ADA Responsible: A Replication and Robustness Check of Acemoglu and Angrist (2001). Ithica, NY: Research and Rehabilitation Training Center for Economic Research on Employment Policy for Person with Disabilities, August 2004.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- However, researchers have shown that the work-limited measure of disability is highly correlated with other more objective assessments of health and with clinical measures of disability (Burkhauser, Houtenville and Wittenburg, 2001). More importantly, Burkhauser et al. (2002) shows that while the work-limited measure does not capture everyone with impairments, trends in the prevalence of work-limitations and of employment for the work-limited match these same trends using limitations measures. Thus, Burkhauser et al. (2002) concludes that the work-limited measure is appropriate for monitoring trends in outcomes of those with disabilities, which provides support for its use in this study.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- However, the work-limited measure has been criticized (see, e.g., Kruse and Schur 2003) because individuals may report their work-limitation conditional on their employment status or the U.S. 184 (2002) 224 F.3d 840. Also see Appendix 1 for additional discussion. 33 See Kruse and Schur (2003) for a discussion of how the work-limited measure overlaps with limitations to activities of daily life. characteristics of their job. This could lead to estimated employment effects being negatively biased. This is discussed further below. Because, as I show, there are positive estimated employment effects, this suggests that the true effects could be even larger.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Jolls, Christine, and J. J. Prescott. 2004. Disaggregating Employment Protection: The Case of Disability Discrimination. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, No. 10740.
- Kruse, Douglas, and Lisa Schur. 2003. Employment of People with Disabilities Following the ADA. Industrial Relations, 42(1): 31--64.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Long, Alex B. 2004. State Anti-Discrimination Law as a Model for Amending the Americans with Disabilities Act. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 65: 597--653.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Long, Alex B. 2008. Introducing the New and Improved Americans with Disabilities Act: Assessing the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. Northwestern University Law Review, 103: 217--229.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Maine Maine's disability discrimination laws followed those of the ADA until Whitney v. Wal-Mart 2006 ME 3736 where the Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruled that Maine's definition of disability did not require the substantially limits requirement of the ADA. In response to Whitney, Maine's legislature passed a bill in 2007 (Laws 2007 c. 385, 3), effective June 21, 2007, which overturned Whitney, while also modifying the definition of disability slightly beyond that of the ADA at the time. These changes mirror a portion of the changes in the PKP Act.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Meer, Jonathan, and Jeremy West. 2013. Effects of the Minimum Wage on Employment Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, No. 19262.
Mora, Ricardo, and Iliana Reggio. 2013. Treatment Effect Identification Using Alternative Parallel Assumptions. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Working Papers, 12-33(March 2013).
Neumark, David, and Diego Grijalva. 2013. The Employment Effects of State Hiring Credits During and After the Great Recession. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, No. 18928.
Neumark, David, Joanne Song, and Patrick Button. 2015. Does Protecting Older Workers from Discrimination Make It Harder to Get Hired? Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 213**.
- Possible Endogeneity of the Work-Limited Measure of Disability With any disability measure that is self-reported, there is a risk that self-reported disability status is endogenous to employment status. Being endogenous to employment is more likely to be the case with the work-limited measure, since it is based on reported limitations to work. Burkhauser et al. (2002) shows that for individuals with a reported impairment (e.g., blind in both eyes), those that report being work-limited are more likely to be employed than those who are not. This suggests that individuals who have an impairment but are sufficiently integrated into the workforce do not report a work limitation.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Reber, S J. 2005. Court-ordered desegregation - Successes and failures integrating American schools since Brown versus Board of Education. Journal of Human Resources, 40(3): 559--590.
- Rev. Code 49.60.180 prohibited discrimination on the basis of physical disability, but the term was not well defined (Long, 2004). It appears that Washington's lack of definition caused courts to rely on the federal definition of disability, which included the substantially limits requirement.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Rhode Island Rhode Island amended their disability discrimination law (Laws 2000, c. 507, 2) effective July 22, 2000, to ensure that mitigating measures were not considered in the determination of disability. The act stated that: ...whether a person has a disability shall be determined without regard to the availability or use of mitigating measures, such as reasonable accommodations, prosthetic devices, medications or auxiliary aids. (RI ST 42-87-1 (A)(1)(e)) This corresponds to one of the changes in the PKP Act.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Rptr. 2d 353 (2000); Toyota Mfg., Ky., inc. v. Williams (00-1089) 534 U.S. 184 (2002) 224 F.3d 840 24 For example, Maureen K. v. Tuschka (2013, 2d Dist) 2013 Cal App states that the jury should never have been consulted as to if the plaintiff's HIV positive status made her legally disabled, as she was disabled as a matter of law. 25 For bipolar disorder, see a discussion in Long (2008), who cites Horwitz v. L & J.G. Stickley, Inc., 122 F. Supp.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Table 2: Summary Statistics - Labor Market Outcomes 1994-2000 2001-2007 Non-disabled Disabled Non-disabled Disabled (1) (2) (3) (4) Employed (%) CA 79.1 24.5 79.4 20.4 Not CA 83.2 25.2 82.6 20.3 Not in Labor Force (%) CA 16.1 71.1 16.5 76.0 Not CA 13.4 71.5 13.8 76.5 Unemployed (%) CA 4.8 4.5 4.2 3.6 Not CA 3.4 3.3 3.6 3.2 Weeks Worked CA 40.6 13.3 40.6 11.2 Not CA 42.6 13.2 42.3 10.9 Received SSI/DI (%) CA 0.6 35.0 0.6 37.4 Not CA 0.6 29.7 0.5 29.3 State Unemployment Rate (%) CA 6.6 5.8 Not CA 4.8 5.1 Extra Available Weeks of CA 0 4.4 Unemployment Insurance Not CA 0 4.4 N CA 41,879 3,119 56,572 4,079 Not CA 389,169 34,066 616,748 51,363 See the notes to Table 1.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Taylor, Barry C. 2009. Court Interpretations of Major Life Activities Under the ADA: What Will Change After the ADA Amendments Act? Chicago, IL: DBTAC Great Lakes ADA Center, April 2009.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- The question is, then, how well does the work-limited measure of disability in the CPS ASEC, which I use to define treatment, correspond to the definition of disability in FEHA after the PKP Act? For one of the changes in the PKP Act, there is a good match. One of the changes in the PKP Act was to deem working a major life activity under California's FEHA31 , but this was deemed a major life activity in case law. For individuals who report being work-limited to prove that they are disabled under the ADA, they must prove that their reported work limitation substantially limits a major life activity or limits them from working in a class of jobs or a broader range of jobs (Long, 2008). It is not enough for them to argue that their condition limits them just in a particular job.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Third, the PKP Act also added working to the list of major life activities, while working 22 Sutton v. United Airlines (119 S. Ct. 2139 (1999)), Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (119 S. Ct. 2133 (1999)), and Albertson's, Inc. v. Kirkingburg (119 S. Ct. 2162 (1999)).
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- This rationale for adopting the PKP Act is listed in the minutes of California's Assembly Committee on Judiciary hearing on bill A.B. 2222 on April 11, 2000, which was the first time the precursor to the PKP Act was discussed in the legislature30 . The rationale section explicitly proposes the measures in the PKP Act in reaction to the court misinterpretations of limits and in reaction to the Sutton Trilogy. Given all this evidence it is highly unlikely that the PKP Act was enacted as an endogenous response to labor market conditions. 29 Sutton v. United Airlines (119 S. Ct. 2139 (1999)), Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (119 S. Ct. 2133 (1999)), and Albertson's, Inc. v. Kirkingburg (119 S. Ct. 2162 (1999)). 30 See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/asm/ab_2201-2250/ab_2222_vote_20000411_000002_asm_ comm.html (accessed May 23, 2015).
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
Thompkins, Allison V. 2013. The Earnings Consequences of the Americans with Disabilities Act on People with Disabilities. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research Working Paper, November 2013.
- was not considered as a major life activity under the ADA case law. The inclusion of working as a major life activity avoids the so-called single job rule, where case law established that it is not enough for workers to argue that their impairment precludes them from a single job or narrow range of jobs, they must argue that it precludes them from a class of jobs or a broader range of jobs (Long, 2008). There have been several cases where plaintiffs could only establish that their condition limited the major life activity of working only in their particular job23 . The PKP Act resolved this issue by adding to FEHA:...Further, under the law of this state, working is a major life activity, regardless of whether the actual or perceived working limitation implicates a particular employment or a class or broad range of employments. (Cal Gov Code 12926.1(c)) Thus, the PKP Act's addition of working as a major life activity made it easier for individuals to be deemed disabled.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now
- Washington Washington's definition of disability was vague before an amendment (Laws 2007, c. 317), effective May 4, 2007, changed Washington's definition to follow a medical diagnosis definition like Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York. These medical diagnosis definitions deem individuals to be disabled without requiring them to show that their condition substantially limits a major life activity (Neumark, Song and Button 2015; Long 2004). Prior to this amendment, Wash.
Paper not yet in RePEc: Add citation now