BBI International Distinguished Fellow, Associate Professor Paul Harpur from the University of Queensland, has published his most recent book – Ableism at work: disablement and hierarchies of impairments with  Cambridge University Press..  Ableism at work: disablement and hierarchies of impairments provides a comprehensive analysis of how value judgments in international and domestic laws have resulted in a hierarchy of impairments, whereby the nature of an impairment is used to determine whether a worker is protected and supported, rather than the extent of impairment or capacity to work.

Harpur explains in his acknowledgements “The seed for this monograph started with a coffee with Ursula Connolly and myself in 2016 while I was an International Visiting Fellow, Centre for Disability Law and Policy, Institute for Lifecourse & Society, National University of Ireland, Galway. Ursula and I compared notes on how workers with mental injuries were treated between our respective home jurisdictions of Australia and Ireland. We started writing these thoughts down and I discussed them further with the towering intellect of Professor Peter Blanck while I was visiting with him a few weeks later at the Burton Blatt Institute, Syracuse University, New York. When the seed of an idea hit the fertile ground of Professor Blanck an output soon followed: Paul Harpur, Ursula Connolly and Peter Blanck, ‘Socially Constructed Hierarchies of Impairments at Work: Example of the Australian and Irish Workers’ Access to Compensation for Injuries’ (2017) 27 Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 4, 507. This paper stimulated my academic interest and I have expanded on it theoretically and legally to produce this monograph. I am academically and personally grateful to Peter and Ursula.”

In the Foreword to Harpur’s book, Professor Blanck writes: “Dr Paul Harpur’s important treatment in this book nonetheless underscores that the CRPD’s normative shift is leaving many workers with psychosocial disabilities behind. Although workplace laws and practices generally are becoming more supportive and accommodating of persons with mobility, physical, and sensory disabilities, particularly driven by new technologies, regulatory frameworks historically and today disproportionately exclude those who disclose psychosocial disabilities.”

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities promotes ability equality, but this is not reflected in national laws. Australia, Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States all have one thing in common: regulatory frameworks that treat workers with psychosocial disabilities less favorably than workers with either physical or sensory disabilities. Whether it be denying antidiscrimination protection to people with episodic disabilities, addictions, or other psychological impairments, failing to make reasonable accommodations/adjustments for workers with psychosocial disabilities, or denying them workers compensation or occupational health and safety protections, regulatory interventions embed inequalities. Ableism, sanism and prejudice are expressly stated in laws, reflected in judgments and perpetuated by workplace practices.