Falling short of equal opportunities for persons with disabilities in Trinidad and Tobago: evidence from Equal Opportunity Commission case files

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-06-2022-0146
• Published date: 07 December 2022
• Date: 07 December 2022
• Pages: 382-397
• Subject Matter: HR & organizational behaviour,Employment law,Diversity,equality,inclusion
• Author: Bephyer Parey,Elisabeth Kutscher,Hannah Enightoola

Falling short of equal opportunities

for persons with disabilities

in Trinidad and Tobago:

evidence from Equal Opportunity

Commission case files

Bephyer Parey

The University of the West Indies St. Augustine Campus,

Saint Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago

Elisabeth Kutscher

The George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA, and

Hannah Enightoola

The University of the West Indies St. Augustine Campus,

Saint Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of the study is to examine if the existing legislative framework in Trinidad and

Tobago supports equal opportunities and the achievement of fundamental human rights for persons with

disabilities seeking to access education, employment, accommodations and goods and services.

Design/methodology/approach –Data were collected from 105 complaints filed with Trinidad and

Tobago’s Equal Opportunity Commission from 2010 to 2021 regarding disability discrimination. The steps of

constant comparison were used to analyse characteristics of each case, complainants’desired outcomes and the

actual outcomes of the cases (i.e. withdrawn, closed, forwarded to conciliation or the Equal Opportunity

Tribunal).

Findings –Across all cases, persons with disabilities desired access to unavailable services, opportunities for

employment or an apology for emotional distress. Cases that were withdrawn reflected missed opportunities to

address systemic issues, closed cases reflected a bounded process for redress, and cases advancing to

conciliation or the Tribunal required documentation or support.

Originality/value –This study provides insights into how the current policy and its implementation

miss opportunities to address discrimination at organisational and systemic levels. Specifically, cases

revealed dominant/subordinate dynamics in society and a lack of transparency throughout the system.

Authors provide recommendations for policy and systemic change, including addressing gaps in

national legislation and adopting strong equality of opportunity and equality of well-being

approaches.

Keywords Discrimination, Equal opportunities, Disabilities, Well-being, Trinidad and Tobago, Legislation

Paper type Research paper

EDI

42,3

382

This project was possible through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Equal

Opportunity Commission (EOC) of Trinidad and Tobago and the University of the West Indies. The

complaints lodged with EOC are confidential, and access to them for research purposes was possible via

the MOU. The MOU was operationalised within the SALISES Disability Studies Research Cluster

chaired by Dr. Bephyer Parey. All authors are members of the cluster.

Ethical approval: Ethical approval for the research was granted by the Campus Ethics Research

Committee of the University of West Indies, St. Augustine Campus. Ethical reference number: CREC-SA.

1168/09/2021

Funding: There was no funding for this research.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-7149.htm

Received 7 June 2022

Revised 29 August 2022

14 October 2022

Accepted 20 October 2022

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 42 No. 3, 2023

pp. 382-397

© Emerald Publishing Limited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-06-2022-0146

Introduction

International human rights expressed in the principles of social equality and social justice apply to

everyone (United Nations, 1948). These rights, provided for in various international instruments,

“servetochallengestatestoreviselawsinwayswhich offer guaranteed protections for the rights

of citizens, especially members of subordinate groups”(Kallen, 2004, p. 13). Despite the existence

of international guidelines, many groups continue to experience inequality and injustice. Persons

with disabilities (PWD) comprise approximately 15% of the global population, yet, they are often

overlooked for social mobility opportunities and are vulnerable to discrimination (World Health

Organisation, 2011;Lindsay et al.,2019). Worldwide, unequal treatment of PWD results in higher

rates of poverty, poorer health and education outcomes and fewer opportunities for employment

than persons without disabilities (United Nations, 2019;Lindsay et al.,2019). Examining the

implementation of national frameworks is crucial to addressing social equality. In this regard, the

purpose of this paper is twofold: (1) to determine if the legislative framework in Trinidad and

Tobago supports equal opportunities for PWD and (2) to examine the appropriateness of the equal

opportunity lens in promoting the achievement of fundamental human rights among PWD. The

paper begins with a discussion of dominant/subordinate relations, conceptualisations of disability

and approaches to equality which altogether form the theoretical framework underpinning our

analyses. We then highlight the issue of disability discrimination globally and in Trinidad and

Tobago before we discuss our methodology and findings. Against the backdrop of our theoretical

framework and international guidelines, we provide recommendations for legislative change to

support equal opportunities and well-being for PWD.

Disability, discrimination and equality

Disability is conceptualised in many ways. The medical model focuses on impairment,

overlooking the inflexibility of social and physical environments which in turn leads to an

invalidation of the challenges experienced by PWD and acceptance of discriminatory

practices (Barber, 2015;Bunbury, 2019). Moreover, since dominant/subordinate relations

exist among different categories of human characteristics including disability status, group-

level inequalities occur and persons belonging to the subordinate group (e.g. PWD) are

recipients of categorical discrimination (i.e. unequal treatment based on their membership in

the subordinate group; Kallen, 2004). Disability discrimination is even more complex due to

its historical rootedness to racial segregation (Annamma et al., 2013). Discrimination, when

left unchecked, perpetuates societal inequalities which have pervasive economic and social

consequences. It can manifest at the individual (stemming from personal biases), institutional

(resulting from prejudiced policy ) and systemic (stemming from deep-se ated group

inequalities in society as a consequence of prolonged institutional discrimination) levels

(Kallen, 2004). Distinction is also made between formal (organisational practices or policies)

and interpersonal (informal interactions such as inappropriate jokes, rumours, or other

negative verbal or nonverbal behaviour) discrimination (Shen and Dhanani, 2018;Solorzano

et al., 2000). The latter is particularly important as from a legal standpoint discrimination is

defined as an organisational practice or policy that affects members of a protected group

differently from other groups; yet, more subtle and unprotected forms of discrimination

persist, including interpersonal discrimination and discrimination based on social

characteristics that are not always legally protected (Barber, 2015;Shen and Dhanani, 2018).

Nowadays, there is greater acceptance of the social model of disability which

distinguishes between impairment and disability and seeks to address the socially created

exclusion, structural and cultural barriers, and oppression experienced by PWD (Barber,

2015;Lawson and Beckett, 2020). One of the key tenets of the social model relates to the

provision of equal opportunity. Equality of opportunity is distinct from equality of treatment,

which often results in the exclusion of some groups from mainstream society and equality of

Examining equal

opportunity case

files

383