DE Talk | Section 503 Changes: What Employers and the Disability Community Need to Know

Season 8 • Episode 3

The 7% utilization goal is gone. The annual disability data analysis is gone. The CC-305 disability self-identification form is gone. As of September 21, 2026, a Final Rule from the OFCCP has stripped away the measurement tools federal contractors have used for over a decade under Section 503, but the underlying obligations to recruit, accommodate, and not discriminate against people with disabilities haven’t disappeared.

In this episode, guest host PJ Rossi of Forte Advisory Group and HR Compliance Consultant at DirectEmployers sits down with longtime disability advocate Felicia Nurmsen, Founder of Inclusion Without Illusion, to unpack what this rule change really means for HR compliance teams, talent acquisition, and the disability community—including why losing the measurement requirement isn’t permission to do less, the difference between self-identification and disclosure (and why most disabilities are invisible to begin with), how AI in hiring can quietly rebuild the same barriers this rule was meant to remove, why the accommodation process is a retention strategy rather than a cost center, and how to tell whether your disability recruitment partnerships are still earning their keep.

This podcast is for general discussion purposes only and should not be considered as legal advice.

About DE Talk

The DE Talk monthly podcast features honest and open dialogue between powerhouse industry experts on a variety of HR topics ranging from OFCCP compliance advice to emerging recruitment marketing trends, equal employment opportunity initiatives, and insightful solutions that help infuse new life into your HR strategies.

Episode Interviewer

Episode Guest

Transcript

DirectEmployers Association (00:00):

Get ready. The DE Talk Podcast starts now. Insightful conversations and dialogue helping you put the human factor back in HR.

PJ Rossi (00:09):

Welcome everyone to the DE Talk Podcast. I’m your host, PJ Rossi, chief advisor at Forté Advisory Group and HR compliance consultant at DirectEmployers. Today, I’m excited to dive into a topic that is on the minds of so many, the Section 503 Final Rule and the impact this regulatory change will have on both employers and the disability community as a whole. For more than a decade, federal contractors and subcontractors have lived with three fixtures of Section 503, the Rehabilitation Act. We had obligations to strive to achieve a 7% utilization goal for individuals with disabilities. We had an annual data analysis to measure against it. And of course, we had the form CC 305 where we asked applicants and employees to complete a self-identification as a person with disabilities for workplace benchmarking. But as of just the other day, September 21st, 2026, a final rule from the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs has removed all three requirements.

(01:22):

Contractors are still expected to do outreach, provide accommodations and not discriminate of course, but the yardstick to measure effectiveness is gone. So what does that mean for employers? What does that mean for the nonprofits and the disability advocates who work alongside them and for the millions of people with disabilities who are looking for work?

(01:44):

To help me work through this today, I’m joined by someone who’s seen this from the advocacy side for a very long time. Today, I have the pleasure of welcoming Felicia Nermson, a longtime disability advocate and educator with 25 years of experience building disability inclusion as a business strategy for Fortune 500 employers, providing measurable outcomes and authentic engagement. She’s spent eight years with the National Organization on Disability and is now the founder of Inclusion Without Illusion LLC, where she focused training and advising employers on ways to turn fairness from a talking point into operational excellence.

(02:29):

For context, this topic is especially near and dear to me as I’ve spent over 20 years in leadership roles overseeing all things associated to equal employment opportunity, affirmative action, HR privacy, and all things regulatory compliance and the programming associated. Watching how quickly the landscape is changing, coupled with the advancement of AI in hiring and selection procedures has really left many of my clients scratching their heads on where to go from here. So with that, I’m excited. Let’s dive in to today’s discussion. And Felicia, welcome.

Felicia Nurmsen (03:09):

Thank you so much, PJ. I’m so happy to be here with you. This is really a time of chaos, I think, for many of us, and especially for the employers that we work with. It really is just, I think we all wake up wondering what’s going to hit the floor now.

PJ Rossi (03:27):

Exactly. So Felicia, we have a lot of ground to cover today, and I know just like me, you’re worried about this and the ripple effect that the changes to Section 503 will have for the disability community as a whole. I know I shared a brief background about you, but for context, can you share a little bit about your experience and the work you do within Inclusion Without Illusion?

Felicia Nurmsen (03:54):

Sure. Thank you so much for that, PJ. I started Inclusion Without Illusion just about a year ago after I left NOD, the National Organization on Disability, simply because I really wanted to be able to focus on, as you said, more of the education piece as well as advisory services for clients. I’ve been doing it for a very long time, worked with many different clients, both on the for-profit as well as the nonprofit side, government agencies, et cetera. But I think one of the things that I have really focused on since I left NOD is really the accommodation process simply because I don’t think that we have used measurement, that 7% goal or just the self-ID rate to help us to understand, okay, this is what our population looks like within our organizations. However, do we continue to understand how that population performs as it relates to our non-disabled peers?

(04:49):

So I don’t just want to focus on that self-ID rate when people are hired and then five years later. The ripple effect for me is really thinking about how do we continue to really place the lens on the entire employee life cycle? It never should just be about hiring. I really want to understand how we as people with disabilities are going to continue to grow and create pathways for success within our careers within those organizations that are intentionally hiring us as well as just continuing to create a culture. We don’t have that measurement piece now per se, but really understanding how to create that culture so that we can continue not only to attract people from various marginalized populations, but also how do we continue to help them to grow and to continue to be very productive as part of our employee base colleagues, et cetera.

PJ Rossi (05:45):

Felicia, I love that. I know that being in corporate for as long as I’ve been in the past, it’s easy to focus attention on talent acquisition only. And we have to remember and challenge ourselves that the employee life cycle, to your point, we have a whole pool of employees that even though they may not have needed support when they were hired or at one point, but at some point during their career, they may need some sort of accommodation support associated to it. And what are we as an employer doing to help eliminate some of those barriers? So I love that. Thank you. And I know you’ve had a laser focus on the notice of proposed rulemaking very specific to the Section 503 and the corresponding comment period in the fall of last year in 2025, and now the newly published rulemaking that took effect just the other day.

(06:43):

So while Section 503 still requires non-discrimination provisions, affirmative action programs for covered contractors, accommodations, outreach, and the recruitment of individuals with disabilities and the general record keeping and retention practices, the removal of the obligations around self-ID, the form, the 7% utilization goal, the analysis, really it seems to narrow the scope of Section 503 on what employer’s obligations actually are. What is the one thing that you want listeners really to understand about this particular change?

Felicia Nurmsen (07:23):

I really hope that employers don’t treat this less required measurement, I guess as permission to do less disability inclusion, to focus less on inclusion. The form and the utilization goal were always imperfect. I go back to the time when we were just implementing this and how that utilization goal was very difficult for people to accept simply because number one, it didn’t have any teeth. And number two, that number really just seemed like we’re creating a barrier. We’re not really allowing employers to think about where they are now and how to get to where they need to be because it’s a process. It’s not just I’m at 2% and now suddenly I’m going to put these things in place and we’re going to go to 7%. So that’s number one, always imperfect, but what it did is it created visibility and accountability. And I don’t want for employers to pull back from that, to pull back from that and really understanding what the value of accessibility is, what the value of the outreach is, accommodation improvements, as I said, that’s something that I really am focused on.

(08:28):

And then continuing to have the meaningful conversations and evaluations of what the barriers are as far as the workplace is concerned. Because we know, both of us, we’ve been doing this for a long time, but we know that when we make improvements for people with disabilities within the workplace, the marketplace, whatever it is, it really does help all of us. So I really am hoping that employers continue on the path that if they don’t take us permission to stop the work entirely.

PJ Rossi (08:59):

And I’ll be honest with you, Felicia, that was one of my main concerns when a lot of the folks that I’ve interacted with and talked with really just read the headline that we’re no longer going to be using the form for self-identification, and that was the end of it. So folks were like, “Well, we’re just not going to collect any information.” So they were asking really good questions. What about accommodations? And I’m wondering if, and this is just really rhetorical question, if the employers are just so fatigued over so many changes since January of 25 that it’s just something else to kind of shelve, and that’s very scary to me. Let me ask you a loaded question. When you first read the final rule, what was your gut reaction, honestly?

Felicia Nurmsen (09:48):

My gut reaction was it wasn’t surprising. Here we go. We’re going to find a way to continue to discriminate against various marginalized populations within the workplace and particularly within the federal workplace. What is it, 119,000 contracts? I mean, it’s huge. And the number of people that are employed, that really puts a dent in progress that we can continue to make, but it wasn’t surprising with what has been happening. As you said, it’s chaos. It’s one thing after another. And I also had that feeling of, as I have in the past, I really hope employers understand that this is temporary. This is temporary. We’re 18 months in, all of these changes have been made, et cetera. Do not stop the good work that you’re doing. Do not stop how you are measuring internally what that progress is because it’s going to change. I always try to be very hopeful about what is coming whilst continuing to deal with what is happening presently and being able to help companies to shore up whatever they may be doing and how they can continue to make progress without this strict measurement.

PJ Rossi (11:01):

I will be honest, my reaction was different than yours. I think I’ve been in a perpetual state of shock and awe, so I was like, “Seriously?” So I have adopted at least a mindset to where, to your point, it will change. It’s changed. I mean, for as long as I’ve been in this space, it was static. It didn’t change for so long. But since about 2012, 13, 14, especially 14 when we implemented all these obligations in 2015, we didn’t have a whole bunch of change prior to that. But since then, there’s been exponential changes for the community associated to it. So you’re right, we just need to continue to expect change and be able to adapt associated to it. So with that being said, the Department of Labor says inviting people to self-identify actually is a conflict with the Americans with Disabilities Act and that even when the invitation is voluntary, tell me, how does that argument land in the disability community?

(12:05):

I know I have a reaction to it, but I want to know how do you think it landed? Was it agreed by the community indicating, “Well, yeah, you are violating my rights,” or is it, “No, I want to have the opportunity to self-identify and be counted?”

Felicia Nurmsen (12:20):

Gosh, that’s a great question, PJ, because I think that it depends. Anytime we think about self-identification, I always use myself as an example because yes, I thought it was great, right? Yes, it’s fantastic. But did I self-identify as a person with a disability for many years? I did not. Always nervous. I think that one thing that people will be nervous about, and maybe I certainly am not one to the conspiracy piece of this at all to support that, but will it continue to be private? That is my singular concern is yes, I do feel like, of course, some of us want to check the box. We want for our organizations to understand and see, because it’s all in numbers, the number of people that have disabilities within the organization. However, I really want to ensure that that does continue to be private and anonymous and only reported out if it’s going to be reported out at all in aggregate.

PJ Rossi (13:16):

Right. Even when we implemented self-identification for individuals with disabilities, everybody was suspicious of why do you want to know? I don’t understand. What are you going to do with it? Who has access to this? Meaning, do the decision makers of my career or future opportunities have access to this information? And I’ll give you an example. One employer that I worked for in my corporate career had less than 1% of folks who identified out of maybe 40,000 employees, less than 1%. So we spent the next three years with campaigns and just really making people aware, not of the obligation, but of the commitments the employer actually had, having robust accommodations process, having robust, whether it was an ergonomic request or an actual accommodation request, and what can we do to be helpful in eliminating a barrier for someone to do work and really putting in robust programs in place and highlighting all of that activity.

(14:23):

And then fast-forward, so you do that on a frequent basis and try and cover, I guess, all of the questions that may come up. When we first implemented all of that, there were a lot of people who were like, “Hey, I have macular degeneration. Do I have a disability?” And I was like, “No, no, I don’t need a note from your doctor.

Felicia Nurmsen (14:43):

Right

PJ Rossi (14:44):

I don’t want to know. I really don’t. I want to support you in the manner in which you need support, but I don’t need the details.” So all of that to say they had to get to a place of trust and we reinforced, had to reinforce why we were asking where the data went, who has access to it, that it will not be used in any potential decision that would cause an adverse treatment, but it took a long time to get there. At the end of the day, I think you fast-forward about eight or nine years later, we had 12% within the organization that actually identified as an individual or had a disability or has had disability. So that to me was a huge success, but most employers start where everybody else is, and that’s the, “Gosh, I’m really suspicious. What are you going to do with it?” One of the things that we did discuss yesterday in a foundations course about the same thing that you’re concerned about, and that’s the data, who has access, what are you going to do with it?

(15:47):

Do I have an option to delete it? What are my options? And I’m really a stickler on this, and that’s be transparent about why you’re asking. Be transparent about what you’re going to do with it. Be transparent about who has access to it. Make a commitment that there won’t be any adverse treatment associated to whether you identify or choose not to, nothing bad will happen to you as a result. And then should you want to make changes, how they can go about doing that in the future. So that, if anything, I just want to underscore for those that are listening how important it is to be transparent. That is not the company data, that’s the employee information and data. So act accordingly, basically.

Felicia Nurmsen (16:31):

I want to follow up on that though, TJ, because you’re making really great points, but think about that through the AI lens now.

PJ Rossi (16:38):

Oh, yeah.

Felicia Nurmsen (16:40):

So many of our companies are utilizing AI for various tasks within the hiring process, the interview process, et cetera. So that adds another layer of being transparent of helping or supporting candidates, employees to understand how is AI going to house that information, where is that going and will it be protected? Because for me, what I have seen with this whole implementation of AI is that we’re building the AI without even considering that as far as our data.

PJ Rossi (17:16):

That you’re scraping the surface of a larger concern and consideration for sure, for sure.

(17:23):

But it’s a really good point. So thinking through that, and I’ll ask you a question, I had an experience with a client that I had, and we were talking about the use of AI in their sourcing, selection, interviewing process. And the conversation came up about the disclosure, so disclosing that AI is present in this process. Then I asked very explicitly about what happens to those that opt out that don’t want AI or cannot participate maybe fully because of potentially a disability that someone may have. So that was a very interesting conversation. So let me ask you this, and I know what outside counsel said at the end of the day, but the answer that I got back was then they won’t proceed in the process, which is apparently common. What is your sense of the employers today? Are they ensuring that the accommodations, the actual process, the request isn’t just a checkbox?

(18:34):

I offer accommodations because you can email this person or you can call a number and go through the telephone tree and hit one and then hit number three and hopefully you actually get to somebody at the end. What is your messaging to those employers that really haven’t paused long enough to think through some of the processes?

Felicia Nurmsen (18:56):

You’re still responsible regardless of whether or not you are choosing, and it is a choice, whether or not you are choosing to implement an AI system platform, whatever we want to call it, that is discriminatory and continues to be discriminatory based on past practices, or are we looking at this as a way to be responsible and accountable and looking, my dream, the goal is to have it be so that we are looking to bring more people in, not force them out. And that’s what employers, for me, I’ve been on the corporate side and particularly in staffing, you need people and a lot of people. So I’m looking to include more. I want them to include more, not to push people out of the process. And then one other thing is that what we have shown, and I use this as an example all the time and I’d love to hear your thought on it, is that what we have shown with the neurodiversity initiatives that we have is that we can go outside the system anytime we want, but you have to do it with intention.

(20:08):

You have to have the desire and you have to have the resources, we’ll just say the resources to do that. And that absolutely can apply to AI because AI is there to make your job easier. So you can actually program the algorithm however you want to then bring that person outside of that system very easily. And do we want to do that? Because we’ve shown that we can, we’ve shown that it works, that we can hire really great qualified people through that process. So now are we just creating those additional barriers? But that’s always the example that I use is the neurodiverse.

PJ Rossi (20:44):

It’s interesting that you raised that point. The challenge that, and you know this, I’m preaching to choir, the challenge that employers have obviously is working for an organization myself with over a million, what I call expressions of interest, a million. Now, not all of them are applicants by quote unquote definition, but we had a million expressions of interest. So how do you manage that? HR, talent acquisition being a cost center, meaning they don’t generate revenue, you don’t have a profit and loss statement in any capacity, you are a cost to the organization. How do you do that and do it effectively? And the challenge is the answer right now is AI. AI is going to save the day. That’s great. Believe me, I love my AI. I am a firm believer in user and I’ve developed agents, some good, some bad, that’s a whole other story.

(21:41):

But the challenge they have is to get butts in seats.

Felicia Nurmsen (21:46):

Yes, absolutely.

PJ Rossi (21:48):

Butts in seats. So how can I do that? How can I be the hero? How do I process these people through? We’ve lost sight of some of the barriers that have shown up because the technology. We went through this, if you think back when we converted from paper applications to electronic applications, we had the same thing.

(22:10):

We had a whole bunch of heartburn about what about the visually impaired and what about if there was an assessment attached to it and how are we going to integrate that into the stack and all the things associated. We figured it out. Did we do it well all the time? No, but we figured it out and we improved. And some of us really foot stomped the need to ensure that there was an alternate path for those that needed it upon request. We’ve gotten into the last few years, and maybe this is just the PJ opinion, that organizations have made significant sweeping changes within their staffs. They’ve realigned, they’ve reorged, there was mergers, there was acquisitions, there were divestitures, there was all kinds of movement in the space, and we’ve lost a lot of that institutional knowledge that at least somebody who knows something I can at least ask a question of or maybe game plan, brainstorm through.

(23:06):

What do you think employers today should be doing? I mean, because you’ve got all the noise, we have the butts in seats and we have budget constraints and trying to demonstrate return on investment, all the things. How do we underscore what should be important for the individuals with disabilities that we’re trying to attract and support the ones that exist in our organizations today?

Felicia Nurmsen (23:32):

That’s a great question.

PJ Rossi (23:34):

I know, and it’s hard.

Felicia Nurmsen (23:36):

It is hard because again, it came up in staffing and in call centers and where the answer is always, it depends, right?

PJ Rossi (23:45):

And it’s even more gray now because they’ve taken away the guidance and the guardrails that we’ve had, and now it’s like we’re left to our own devices. And there are a lot of folks that are just like, we’re just not going to do it.

Felicia Nurmsen (23:59):

It’s easier. Exactly. Just like it was so easy to be done with DEI, although most companies continued, they just are doing it under the radar. They’re calling it fairness, employee engagement, et cetera. I guess what I would hope is that employers would continue down the path that they have chosen. But I think that it’s still so early that it’s very to say that the rule is going to result in unemployment, a rise in unemployment, a reduction in employment, however we want to do that. But it’s more indirect, I think, where employers reduce the outreach, they won’t have the same accessibility investment, they’ll reduce the number of partnerships that they have. Gosh, I remember years ago working with a very large organization like you’re talking about, and they were working with 10,000 different organizations across the US, nonprofits hiring for people with disabilities as a federal contractor.

(24:53):

So I mean, was that a smart. Anyway, we could talk about that as a totally different approach, but anyway. Right?

PJ Rossi (25:00):

They were vested.

Felicia Nurmsen (25:01):

That’s the point. Yes, the change could absolutely exacerbate those existing disparities, but really hoping that employers will continue. What can you continue to do? Continue to create and follow those leading practices that really successful employers are currently implementing within their own organizations in order to maintain accessible hiring systems, in order to improve and clear the accommodation pathway, because we know that that continues to be such a challenge for so many organizations. How do I bring it to scale? How do I make it so that employers. Because for me, I mean, I’ve had a horrible experience asking for an accommodation in the past, and horrible is the better part of it. A lot of times it’s downright dehumanizing for people to go through that process. So maintaining those disability recruitment partnerships, and again, I’m going to go back to what we talked about in the beginning, is that looking at this as it’s temporary.

(26:00):

We will change again whether or not that will be in the next two years, in the next five years, et cetera. And really looking at whatever your policy process is now, that it is creating value and it will continue to create value as long as you are invested and you do understand that it doesn’t just help or support people with disabilities. Accessibility is for all. We think of accessibility, that helps everyone. And from the partnership aspect, looking at those partnerships that you currently have, really performing an ROI analysis, only continuing with those partnerships that really do have a strong return on investment and understanding the value of partnerships like DirectEmployers, like yourself as a consultant, looking towards someone that has the experience and has come through all of these changes in the past as a solid resource for you so that you can continue to focus on your core responsibilities, but also have those resources that you need in order to continue to grow as an organization.

PJ Rossi (27:13):

And Felicia, you didn’t mean to, but you answered my next question because we’re not required to measure, at least since 2015, how we’ve been measuring. You’ve answered the question on how should we measure? How do we actually, as an employer, say that we’re doing what we can to eliminate those barriers for the disability community? I love that. You answered the question. I know that I’ve consulted with some folks and DirectEmployers has put out a few resources that really underscore making sure the measurement of effectiveness for the outreach and any type of agreements that you may have with any of the philanthropic organizations that are trying to help with transition services or employment or re-skilling or even actual accommodations like some of our vocational rehabilitation in the states do with supporting us in that regard. So if you had one wish, you have a magic lamp, you have one wish, you can rub the lamp for it, what would it be as we move forward with the changes to Section 503?

Felicia Nurmsen (28:25):

I’m going to continue to go back to understanding the value of what you currently have in place, understanding the value of people with disabilities and other marginalized populations of what we bring to the workplace, how productivity increases. Accommodations don’t just increase productivity of the person with the disability, it does increase the productivity of those that work around us as well because when you can work at, nobody works at 100%, but if you can get to that 60% is really the normal. I think it’s under that now, which is kind of a concern. Anyway, but if you can continue that and really understand that that’s valuable. And again, those systems that are built to bring people in, include, not exclude, that really is what my hope is. And that goes back to the AI conversation in itself, that you will audit that process.

PJ Rossi (29:20):

Well, and leverage it to the good.

Felicia Nurmsen (29:23):

Yes.

PJ Rossi (29:24):

Not just be efficient

Felicia Nurmsen (29:27):

Yes

PJ Rossi (29:28):

Or let’s move fast or faster. It is leveraging it for good. I think that really for me is what resonates for sure.

Felicia Nurmsen (29:36):

And then it’s for good for what’s good for the business. It’s not just what’s good for the individual. It really is good for the business. So being able to make that point, I think I love that.

PJ Rossi (29:48):

So let me ask you this. Do you think the relationship between the employers and whether it’s the nonprofits, the workforce agencies, the partner groups, do you think the relationship changes at this stage? Do you foresee it changing?

Felicia Nurmsen (30:04):

You know what? I think it depends on how the partner reacts to the changes and whether or not they can be agile enough to really shift the focus to where it needs to be for that business. Because it’s very easy for us, particularly when you think about nonprofits and how they are measured and VR, how that’s measured as far as the placements are concerned and how they’re funded, that could be very difficult for our partners to make that change and do it quickly. We’re not always set up to pivot, but there has to be in order to continue with the relationship that you have with the employer and to provide the level of support that they need in the areas now where it can be useful.

(30:45):

And that could be difficult. I certainly don’t put all of the responsibility on the employer. I do think that it really is up to the partner to be able to work together. That’s what a true partnership is, is understanding need and working together.

PJ Rossi (30:58):

I agree completely, Felicia. From your advocacy and education lens in changing those relationships, am I hearing you say that this is maybe an opportunity for the partner as well as the employer to really take stock? Is that what I’m hearing?

Felicia Nurmsen (31:16):

Absolutely. I do think that it is a great opportunity for everyone. We have to look for those little slivers of hope within all of the chaos. And for me, I do think that that is an opportunity for all of us.

PJ Rossi (31:28):

I think right now it’s a real opportunity for the partners to help employers, and I’m going to say something provocative, I’ll apologize in advance, help the employer organize their thoughts on truly the meaning of what Section 503 and the Americans with Disabilities Act actually intended to do rather than just the administrative tasking of self-identifying and doing the data analysis. And I go back to this, it’s equal opportunity for all, not some.

Felicia Nurmsen (32:01):

Yes.

PJ Rossi (32:02):

So what is it that we can do to help eliminate barriers moving forward? And are we really thinking about it from that perspective?

Felicia Nurmsen (32:10):

I love that, PJ. And understanding the ADA is still the law of the land.

PJ Rossi (32:14):

Oh yeah, 100%. Don’t discriminate. Don’t be a bad person and do bad things. But really it does take time. I think as a support person, not in corporate anymore, but as a support person, really my role is to help educate and make the employer aware, not just of the obligations, but truly the opportunities associated to that. So it’s kind of an awareness campaign that I think that we have an opportunity to help the employers through so they don’t de-scope some of these activities. And I think that’s what the greatest risk is. Would you tend to agree?

Felicia Nurmsen (32:53):

I really do. Yeah, I really do because I think that one of the things, we could have this conversation for four hours, but I’m going to stick with when we look at the various opportunities that we have within organizations is that it can’t just be about continuing within a silo of we’re looking to hire people with disabilities, we’re looking to all of these separate things. How many times have you heard we can’t really focus on people with disabilities now because we’re really focused on veterans? I’m not saying that that’s wrong. What I’m saying is that the siloed approach, it doesn’t work. What we can do is we can look and think about how do we incorporate some of the things that we’re doing just as part of our standard practice and think about it through not only just hiring, but retention. An accommodation process is really all about retention.

(33:39):

It’s not a cost center, it actually value. There’ve been the studies through JAN, the Job Accommodation Network that says employers that are calling in and asking the questions, they’re looking to keep someone that has close to six years experience within their organization. You touched on it earlier. We lose that institutional knowledge every time we have somebody that just walks out the door because there’s no one that’s saying during their exit interview that it was because of the accommodation process. We’re saying we have a better opportunity or it’s for personal reasons.

PJ Rossi (34:12):

Wanting to make sure they understand the why behind the whole investment in the accommodation process. You can layer in the fact that looking at not just the employment rates, but the unemployment rates and the unemployment rates are, what is it, about twice as much individuals with disabilities who are unemployed than the able-bodied folks. And that’s scary.

Felicia Nurmsen (34:36):

It is. And it’s still 70 / 30 whether or not we’re choosing to even participate within the employee. Are we looking? It’s still 70 / 30. 70% of people with disabilities are out there as far as the BLS is concerned and 30% of people with disabilities because many of us don’t see an opportunity for ourselves.

PJ Rossi (34:55):

That makes me think of something, Felicia, and I want our audience to understand. An individual with a disability isn’t necessarily someone that maybe you can actually see a disability, whether they’re visually impaired or they’re hearing impaired or they have missing digits or limbs or they’re in a wheelchair, they have a cane, something that is physically seen by another person. And there’s a lot of, I guess, mistrust for those, whether you have a disability that can be seen by someone else and then those that have a hidden disability. Do you think that the changes to Section 503 impact those communities? And for the audience, I want to make sure you understand that the vast majority of people who identify as an individual with a disability, you would never know.

Felicia Nurmsen (35:47):

Exactly. It’s non-apparent.

PJ Rossi (35:50):

You would never know. They get around, they can see and hear and interact and they can carry things and whatever it is, the vast majority of individuals with disabilities cannot be seen by someone else.

Felicia Nurmsen (36:04):

And

PJ Rossi (36:04):

Only then

Felicia Nurmsen (36:06):

It’s a result of age, illness or injury.

PJ Rossi (36:08):

I’m wondering, do you think that these changes will have an impact on the folks with hidden disabilities?

Felicia Nurmsen (36:14):

I just don’t think we’ll identify. We’ll wait again. I think many of us that have non-apparent disabilities don’t. We choose not to identify. Identification for me, self-identification is checking the box. Disclosure is having the conversation. Whether or not we will disclose within the workplace with even our colleagues or our manager, et cetera, I think that this will limit the number of people that will actually do that if you do not have an apparent disability.

PJ Rossi (36:40):

And I think Felicia, you hit on something that’s really interesting for our listeners, and that is the fact that there are folks that have checked the box because there were some assurances that the data was going to be protected and secured and all the things, but did not disclose to anyone around. So that’s very interesting. I know that you’ve spent a lot of time in this space, but let’s kind of pivot a little bit. As we wrap up our conversation today, is there anything that you would like to share or underscore to the HR community, what they should be focusing on during this period of time?

Felicia Nurmsen (37:21):

I do think that one thing that we can do is look at what leading employers will continue to do or what we hope that they continue to do is that they would maintain their accessible hiring systems. They continue on the path that they have started and that they have created value within the workplace. And that is through accessibility, really clearing accommodation pathways so that it makes it easier for people to ask for accommodations and to receive those accommodations, being able to continue with those disability recruitment partnerships that they have. However, really evaluating them to understand what is the ROI, what are the most partnerships that we have, and just continue working with them. It’s no longer about the number of organizations that you’re working with and having to prove that you are actually doing outreach through those organizations. Now it has to be about the quality of the partnership and the quality of the candidates that you’re seeing.

(38:22):

And that goes now to not only reviewing the qualification standards, but really understanding that we have a hiring process that is about people who are qualified, people who have the skills to perform in the role, regardless of whether or not they require an accommodation, regardless of whether or not they have a disability. And it’s not based on fit. It’s always about the air quotes with fit for me because it should not be about fit. It’s not about whether or not you look like me. It’s not about whether or not we went to the same college, university. It really should be about the fact that I am qualified to have everything that I need to be successful in this role. That’s what leading employers will continue to do, and that’s the hope. That’s why they are considered leading employers. They have made fairly significant investments in this process, and they have also found that the investments that they have made within this process of people with disabilities are not only good for people with disabilities, they’re good for everyone in the workplace.

(39:24):

I’m going to throw something else in too, because we have to continue to think about AI in this conversation and that any leading organization, any leading employer right now would audit that technology and ensure that they are not continuing discriminatory practices within the AI unintentionally. And I do think that leading employer would be more unintentional and not really understanding that those things are built in. It’s systemic. Discrimination is systemic. We have it built in. If you’re continuing down the path of AI, which I agree with you that it really is very beneficial for many different reasons, that it does have to be something that is used for good for the business and being able to voluntarily report on the accessibility of it, whatever barriers there are, et cetera, internally so that we can continue to be better.

PJ Rossi (40:23):

Gosh, Felicia, I can’t agree more 100%. Thank you for bringing your perspective and for keeping us honest about the difference between compliance and real inclusion. Why don’t you tell our listeners where can they find you and/or find more information about Inclusion Without Illusion?

Felicia Nurmsen (40:40):

Sure. Thank you so much. This really has been a pleasure for me, PJ. I have enjoyed this conversation greatly. You’re fantastic. Inclusionwithoutllusionllc.com is my website. I also have alterita.com, which is a website that I take a different view. It’s more of a global view and it is definitely more AI related. And also it’s felicia@inclusionwithoutillusionllc.com if they want to go ahead and email me. I would welcome that.

PJ Rossi (41:10):

Awesome. That’s great. Thank you so much again, Felicia. From my side, the practitioner takeaway is this. Just like we talked about earlier, it is equal employment opportunity for all, not for some. And I think our role, as important as it is in this space, is to focus on being able to eliminate those barriers and not create them. So with that, a reminder to everyone listening, this episode is general information and not legal advice. So there’s the disclaimer. Talk to your counsel about how the rule applies to you, your organization, and check whether your state or local rules impose requirements of their own. So if this conversation was useful, please subscribe to receive alert of future episodes and share it with colleagues. And again, Felicia, it’s been a true pleasure talking to you today. So thank you for your time and sharing your experience with us.

Felicia Nurmsen (42:11):

Thank you so much.

DirectEmployers Association (42:12):

Thank you for tuning in for another episode of the DE Talk Podcast. Stay connected with DirectEmployers on Facebook, Twitter, and Linkedin, or subscribe to receive updates straight to your inbox by visiting DirectEmployers.org/Subscribe, or you’ll receive notifications of new episodes, webinars, events, and more.