Not Hiring: How Ending Federal Disability Goals Hurts the Disability Community

Misconceptions about people with disabilities— and our ability to contribute meaningfully—have long limited employment opportunities. Ableist attitudes and exclusionary thinking among employers often result in the rejection of qualified applicants with disabilities. Legislation like Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act has sought to hold at least federal employers accountable for including people with disabilities in their workforce. But Section 503 is now under threat. 

The Fight to Work 

Poverty and unemployment disproportionately affect the disabled community. Many individuals with disabilities are eager to work, yet remain shut out of work opportunities. 

The disability community has waged a long and determined struggle for an equal place in society. For decades, advocates have fought for legislation that reflects our right to participate in the workforce. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 mandated affirmative action by federal employers to recruit, hire, and promote individuals with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 prohibited employment discrimination and required reasonable accommodations in both the public and private sectors. 

But hiring biases persisted. Even the federal government, with all its mandates, was failing to close the gap. 

That began to shift in 2014, when the Obama administration strengthened Section 503, setting a target benchmark for federal employers to strive for a workforce that included at least 7% of individuals (600,000- year one)  with disabilities. Employers were also required to invite applicants to voluntarily self-identify, allowing them to assess the effectiveness of recruitment efforts.  

While failure to meet the 7% goal didn’t result in penalties, the benchmark led to more hiring and real progress. The federal government—the largest employer of people with disabilities—finally had a tool for accountability. 

Now, the Department of Labor proposes rescinding key provisions of Section 503, including the hiring goal itself. 

Why Are Hiring Goals Under Attack? 

The Department of Labor argues that the 7% goal conflicts with ADA rules against pre-offer disability inquiries. These restrictions were originally intended to prevent discrimination against people disclosing disability status too early in the hiring process. 

But disclosure has always been optional—and it’s what made the goal measurable. For many, disclosing a disability can secure necessary accommodations and foster better working conditions. Without a target like the 7% goal, enforcement becomes difficult. Qualified job candidates with disabilities are at risk of being overlooked again. 

Importantly, people with disabilities aren’t calling for the goal’s removal. Neither are employers. The objections come from the White House, an administration that has already eliminated federal programs supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts across the board. 

And that’s despite overwhelming evidence that inclusion benefits everyone.  

Disability Inclusion Is a Win for Everyone

Research shows that organizations prioritizing disability inclusion see increased innovation, team strength and social responsibility . 

Disability advocates note that individuals with disabilities often bring unique problem-solving skills and innovative ideas to the table, making us valuable assets in the workplace. A study by Accenture, in partnership with the American Association of People with Disabilities, found that companies that practiced disability inclusion in hiring experienced higher revenue, better margins, and increased income than their peers. 

Opponents often argue that affirmative action results in hiring underqualified candidates. But data doesn’t support that narrative. In fact, applicants with disabilities are less likely to receive job offers even when equally or more qualified than non-disabled applicants. 

That’s why policies like Section 503 are necessary. They ensure that qualified individuals with disabilities aren’t automatically excluded due to outdated assumptions. 

The Real-World Impact of Elimination 

Removing hiring goals will: 

• Reduce accountability for federal employers. 

• Undermine the ADA’s intent by making enforcement more subjective. 

• Halt progress toward equal employment. 

Agencies like the U.S. Postal Service, which employs nearly 42,000 disabled workers, and the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs, which together employ nearly 100,000 more, could all be affected.  

These numbers matter, in an economy where 75% of people with disabilities are out of work, in comparison to the 32% of unemployed individuals without disabilities.  

Federal employers often used hiring goals for planning and progress measurement. Without them, the burden falls on arbitrary standards of “sufficient effort,” a vague and unenforceable concept. 

And all of this is happening just as remote work has opened new doors. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, telework created a record rise in employment for people with disabilities—progress that is already tapering off. 

The federal government had long aspired to be a “model employer” for people with disabilities, knowing changes in federal policy can influence private businesses’ practices.  

When federal employers fill positions with individuals with disabilities it demonstrates our capacity to be valuable employees, challenging these preconceived notions and biases existing in society and present in the private sector. 

Now the federal government risks undermining its role as a model employer, presenting a model of regression instead. 

What’s Next? 

Federal agencies could continue using Section 503’s targets voluntarily. Disability advocates remain hopeful,but removing the requirement sends the wrong message: that inclusion is optional, and people with disabilities are expendable. 

Fortunately, some private employers have already embraced disability inclusion: 

• AT&T employs more than 7,000 self-identified disabled individuals. 

• Lowe’s, with over 300,000 employees, scored a perfect 100 on the Disability Equality Index. 

• Walmart and Walgreens have both been recognized for inclusive hiring programs although Walmart has recently scaled back. 

Several states—including Maryland, New York, Ohio, and New Jersey—are stepping up with state-level affirmative action policies to support hiring and retention of people with disabilities, too. 

Disability advocates can remain hopeful. Even if the hiring goal is rescinded, federal agencies don’t have to abandon it. The private sector can continue to lead the way, too. 

But watching progress unravel is disheartening. When those in power reinforce harmful stereotypes, they exacerbate systemic issues like poverty, isolation, and unemployment among already marginalized groups. 

The proposed rollback is open for public comment until September 2. Let your voice be heard. Submit a comment to the Department of Labor. This is not just about policy—it’s about the dignity and humanity of millions of Americans. 

Existing legislation seeks to serve every single American citizen should they find themselves disabled and out of work. Legislation like Section 503 must be upheld, not dismantled, by future administrations.  

At Ability Central, we stand with advocates fighting for equal employment opportunities for people with disabilities. Ability Central is dedicated to breaking down barriers and advancing inclusion in workplaces nationwide.  

With your donation, we can continue funding programs and advocacy that drive real change.