IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v371y2025ics027795362500214x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

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

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Best, Rachel Kahn & Fang, Yan & Fisk, Catherine & Krieger, Linda Hamilton & Reddy, Diana, 2025. "Disputed and disfavored: Pain, mental illness, and invisible conditions in disability discrimination cases," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 371(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:371:y:2025:i:c:s027795362500214x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117885
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795362500214X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117885?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:371:y:2025:i:c:s027795362500214x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.