Tackling Disability Discrimination at Work: Towards a Systemic Approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approaching disability discrimination in systemic terms is the most fundamental challenge that disability human rights law currently faces. Achieving fundamental change in relation to disability at work necessitates challenging able-bodied norms. To that end, a social construction of disability entails adapting the environment to meet the needs of those with a variety of disabilities. Tackling disability discrimination requires contesting what is deemed “normal” because it is the way most able-bodied persons function, necessitating a thorough understanding of adverse effects discrimination, which looks behind purportedly neutral practices to uncover detrimental effects on those who do not function “normally”.The fact that some disabilities preclude some kinds of work should not be extended to create employment barriers beyond what is warranted, requiring stringent assessments of bona fide occupational requirements (“BFOR”). The duty to accommodate is now part of the BFOR defence. Accommodation is about making adjustments (exceptions) to rules. If the rule is wholly invalid, one does not reach the stage of adjustment, one simply invalidates the rule. The duty to accommodate in the BFOR test should be seen as subsidiary to the overarching concept of “reasonably necessary”. In moving to the duty to accommodate, it is still important to think in both systemic as well as individualized terms. A systemic approach to accommodation anticipates the need for individualized accommodation, and builds in the necessary flexibility from the outset. Examples of innocent absenteeism are used to elaborate on the notion of systemic accommodation. In different settings, other recent examples blurring the distinction between the prima facie case of discrimination and the BFOR are problematic because such blurring weakens the scrutiny of respondents’ justificatory arguments.Full integration of disabled workers largely depends on the extent to which systemic approaches to disability discrimination can be incorporated into anti-discrimination law.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it