Disputed and disfavored: Pain, mental illness, and invisible conditions in disability discrimination cases

IF 4.9 2区医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

Social Science & Medicine Pub Date : 2025-02-24 DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117885

Rachel Kahn Best , Yan Fang , Catherine Fisk , Linda Hamilton Krieger , Diana Reddy

{"title":"Disputed and disfavored: Pain, mental illness, and invisible conditions in disability discrimination cases","authors":"Rachel Kahn Best , Yan Fang , Catherine Fisk , Linda Hamilton Krieger , Diana Reddy","doi":"10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>When they sue their employers for disability discrimination, do plaintiffs with some types of conditions fare better than others? This paper analyzes legal outcomes for three types of conditions that are potentially disputed (subject to suspicion and doubt) or disfavored (subject to stigma or judgment): mental illnesses, invisible conditions, and subjectively diagnosed pain conditions. Using logistic regression to analyze over 1,100 judicial opinions in the US federal courts, we find that invisible conditions tend to be disputed and mental illnesses tend to be disfavored. We find the strongest and most consistent disadvantages for subjectively diagnosed pain conditions; plaintiffs with these conditions are significantly less likely to be deemed a person with a disability and to win in court. The disadvantages for plaintiffs with difficult-to-document pain conditions persist even if they are deemed to be persons with disabilities, suggesting that skepticism about these conditions pollutes judges’ overall impression of plaintiffs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49122,"journal":{"name":"Social Science & Medicine","volume":"371 ","pages":"Article 117885"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Science & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795362500214X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

When they sue their employers for disability discrimination, do plaintiffs with some types of conditions fare better than others? This paper analyzes legal outcomes for three types of conditions that are potentially disputed (subject to suspicion and doubt) or disfavored (subject to stigma or judgment): mental illnesses, invisible conditions, and subjectively diagnosed pain conditions. Using logistic regression to analyze over 1,100 judicial opinions in the US federal courts, we find that invisible conditions tend to be disputed and mental illnesses tend to be disfavored. We find the strongest and most consistent disadvantages for subjectively diagnosed pain conditions; plaintiffs with these conditions are significantly less likely to be deemed a person with a disability and to win in court. The disadvantages for plaintiffs with difficult-to-document pain conditions persist even if they are deemed to be persons with disabilities, suggesting that skepticism about these conditions pollutes judges’ overall impression of plaintiffs.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Social Science & Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-

CiteScore

9.10

自引率

5.60%

发文量

762

审稿时长

38 days

期刊介绍： Social Science & Medicine provides an international and interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination of social science research on health. We publish original research articles (both empirical and theoretical), reviews, position papers and commentaries on health issues, to inform current research, policy and practice in all areas of common interest to social scientists, health practitioners, and policy makers. The journal publishes material relevant to any aspect of health from a wide range of social science disciplines (anthropology, economics, epidemiology, geography, policy, psychology, and sociology), and material relevant to the social sciences from any of the professions concerned with physical and mental health, health care, clinical practice, and health policy and organization. We encourage material which is of general interest to an international readership.