Top 25 Cities for Workers With Disabilities

Updated: October 30, 2024

Advertising & Editorial Disclosure

Approximately 61 million people in the United States live with disabilities, defined as physical or mental conditions that impair one’s ability to carry out day-to-day activities. Just 18% of Americans with disabilities are employed, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and 26% live in poverty. However, where you live can make the difference between economic opportunity and significant financial difficulty.

To understand where people with disabilities are more likely to be welcomed and supported in the labor market, MoneyGeek analyzed key measures of workforce participation, poverty and access to crucial services such as transportation and health care in 218 American cities.

Key Findings:

The Washington, D.C. area ranks among the top places to live for workers with disabilities.

Alexandria (#1) and Arlington (#4), Virginia, are also in the top five in our ranking.

Florida has cities representing the best and the worst place for workers with disabilities.

Hialeah has the highest gap (56%) in workforce participation between people with and without disabilities. On the other end of the spectrum, Gainesville is the second-best city for workers with disabilities, with a 17% employment gap. The national average is 36%.

The Pacific Northwest dominates the top ten cities.

Portland, OR and Seattle, WA are both in the top ten best places to live for workers with disabilities.

Top Cities for Workers With Disabilities

MoneyGeek’s analysis looked at a range of factors, including the size of the population of people living with disabilities in a given place, the workforce participation rate on its own and compared to the population without a disability's employment rate, and general indicators of poverty.

Places with more people living with disabilities are more likely to have a higher concentration of services and, potentially, a more accepting and supportive community.

With less than half the population living with a disability in the workforce nationally, we looked for places that exceeded the norm. For example, Alexandria, VA — the top-ranked city overall — has 66% labor force participation among people living with disabilities.

However, it can be difficult for people living with disabilities to make enough to live over the poverty line, even in communities that ranked high on our list. For example, in Minneapolis, MN, the poverty rate for people with disabilities is 32%, and 35% in Boston, MA; both cities are in the top 25 and have higher poverty rates for those living with disabilities than the national rate of 26%. In 2020, the national poverty rate for the entire U.S. population was about 11%.

Top 25 Cities Where Workers With Disabilities Are Doing Best

	City	Final Score
1.	Alexandria, VA	100
2.	Gainesville, FL	97
3.	Madison, WI	97
4.	Arlington, VA	96
5.	Portland, OR	96
6.	Seattle, WA	96
7.	Lakewood, CO	96
8.	Minneapolis, MN	95
9.	Pittsburgh, PA	95
10.	Tempe, AZ	95
11.	Aurora, IL	95
12.	Chicago, IL	95
13.	Boston, MA	95
14.	Newport News, VA	95
15.	Paradise, NV	95
16.	Rochester, MN	94
17.	Fremont, CA	93
18.	St. Paul, MN	92
19.	Norfolk, VA	92
20.	Columbus, OH	92
21.	Aurora, CO	91
22.	Nashville-Davidson, TN	91
23.	Philadelphia, PA	91
24.	New York, NY	91
25.	Hillsboro, OR	91

Economic Realities That Workers With Disabilities Face

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects people with disabilities from discrimination in the workplace, but that doesn’t mean that people with disabilities have truly equal access to employment opportunities.

More subtle forms of bias and lack of accommodations can keep people with disabilities out of the workforce.

Other challenges can include lack of access to transportation. For example, in Arlington, TX — which ranked 135th on our list — 0% of workers with disabilities reported taking public transit to work. People with disabilities can modify vehicles to drive and access free "paratransit" services, but that doesn’t mean transportation is always easy or workable for a daily commute.

The financial costs of living with a disability can also be high, even with health insurance coverage, which most people with disabilities have. Financial planning and management can be challenging, and building wealth — such as through homeownership — can be out of reach for many people with disabilities living on Social Security benefits.

According to the National Disability Institute, people living with disabilities are three times more likely to report extreme difficulty paying bills and more than twice as likely to earn less than $35,000 per year compared to people without disabilities. It’s still legal to pay workers living with certain disabilities less than the Federal minimum wage in the United States.

“The lack of income leads to a greater likelihood that people with disabilities are unbanked, skip medical appointments and miss housing payments than people without disabilities,” said Jill Reynolds, associate practice area head for human services at Public Consulting Group.

How to Advocate for Better Opportunities for Workers With Disabilities

Our rankings show a wide range of local conditions for workers with disabilities and tremendous opportunities for improvement — even in the highest-ranking locations. People with disabilities and their advocates can champion changes to improve opportunities for workers with disabilities.

According to Julie Christensen, Executive Director and Director of Policy and Advocacy, Association of People Supporting Employment First (APSE): “One of the most effective forms of advocacy is to promote stories of success. But this needs to be a shared responsibility. When workers with disabilities are able to share their stories, it can be incredibly powerful in breaking down some of the misconceptions and stigma that still exists. However, not everyone wants to focus on being different. We need more business leaders to tell their stories of how the inclusion of people with disabilities enhances their overall business and outcomes. These stories would shift the narrative from simply a feel-good story to demonstrating the contributions and value that people with disabilities bring to the workplace."

Here are a few things anyone can do to help advocate for people with disabilities:

1
Speak up!
Contact your elected representatives at every level: your state’s Governor, State Senator and U.S. House Representative. Let them know how much you care about issues that affect workers with disabilities. The Association of People Supporting Employment First (APSE) provides online resources for how to get started reaching out to elected officials and specific policy items that you can endorse when you do.
2
Advocate at work.
Self-advocacy at work can be challenging, but you have certain legal rights and protections thanks to the ADA. Research your rights and accommodation options to prepare to request what you need from your employer.
3
Be an ally.
Commit yourself to learning more about the experiences of people with disabilities. You may already be an ally to people with disabilities; you can always become an even better one. Expand your social media feeds. Read and watch stories by and about people with disabilities. Develop your own awareness of ableism and look out for accessibility challenges that you might be able to improve — or at least give feedback about. Don’t worry about understanding everything about living with a disability — everyone’s experiences are different — just be the best ally and supporter you can be now and then, strive always to do a little better.
4
Vote with your wallet.
Shop at brands and small businesses led by people with disabilities, then spread the word about your good experiences to amplify your impact.

Methodology

To rank the cities where workers with disabilities are finding the best employment opportunities, MoneyGeek analyzed data from the American Community Survey, MoneyGeek’s Safest Cities and Safest Small Cities and Towns studies, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. MoneyGeek started with over 600 places in America that had populations of people living with disabilities of 10,000 or more. Places without granular data about workers with disabilities or lacking other data points for the analysis were removed to get to the final set of 218 cities.

The ranking of the top cities for workers with disabilities was based on six factors: safety, the population of people living with disabilities, labor force participation, poverty rates, health insurance rates for people with disabilities and cost of living. Each factor in the study was scaled to a score between 0 and 1. The factors were calculated as follows:

Population (full weight): The size of the community of people with disabilities was used as a proxy for the availability of services that support this community. Cities with less than 10,000 people with disabilities were removed from consideration in the analysis.

Labor Force Participation (double weight): This metric equally comprises two metrics.

Labor Force Participation Rate (75%): The percentage of the population of people who have disabilities that are working or looking for employment.
Labor Force Participation Gap (25%): The difference in percentage points of the rate of labor force participation compared to the labor force participation rate of people who don’t have disabilities.

Poverty Rate (full weight): This factor equally comprises two metrics.

Above Poverty Rate (50%): The rate of people with disabilities at or above the poverty level.
Above Poverty Gap (50%): The percentage point difference of the city’s rate of workers with disabilities earning at or above the poverty level and the poverty rate of all other people in the city.

Health Insurance (full weight): The difference in percentage points between the rate of workers with disabilities ages 18–64 that have health insurance and the rate of health insurance nationally.

Transportation (double weight): This factor is the percentage of workers that take public transportation.

Cost of Living (full weight): This factor adjusts for the cost of living in a city.

Full Data Set

The data points presented are defined as follows:

Population With Disability: Size of the population of people with disabilities in the city.
Pop. w. Disability - Labor Force Participation: The percentage of people who live with a disability that have a job or are looking for one.
Labor Force Gap: Difference in the labor force participation rate between people with disabilities and those without disabilities.
Poverty Level With Disability: The percentage of the population that is at or above the poverty level.
Health Insurance Coverage - With Disability: The percentage of the 18–64 population of people with disabilities that have health insurance.

Rank	City	Final Score	Population with Disabilty	Pop. w. Disability: Labor Force Participation	Labor Force Gap	Poverty Level with Disability	Health Insurance Coverage - With disability
1	Alexandria, VA	100	10,181	66%	-23%	81%	98%
2	Gainesville, FL	97	13,992	52%	-17%	77%	94%
3	Madison, WI	97	22,090	53%	-31%	75%	97%
4	Arlington, VA	96	14,506	58%	-31%	84%	95%
5	Portland, OR	96	77,848	52%	-34%	76%	96%
6	Seattle, WA	96	69,753	57%	-30%	73%	96%
7	Lakewood, CO	96	17,734	55%	-31%	88%	96%
8	Minneapolis, MN	95	46,814	56%	-31%	68%	96%
9	Pittsburgh, PA	95	43,974	42%	-40%	70%	96%
10	Tempe, AZ	95	20,360	58%	-21%	81%	91%
11	Aurora, IL	95	17,057	56%	-30%	79%	97%
12	Chicago, IL	95	301,612	44%	-39%	71%	93%
13	Boston, MA	95	79,288	50%	-33%	65%	98%
14	Newport News, VA	95	20,505	51%	-30%	83%	96%
15	Paradise, NV	95	30,547	58%	-27%	77%	91%
16	Rochester, MN	94	11,360	52%	-37%	86%	94%
17	Fremont, CA	93	17,056	60%	-21%	91%	98%
18	St. Paul, MN	92	37,144	53%	-32%	71%	94%
19	Norfolk, VA	92	29,694	49%	-32%	79%	93%
20	Columbus, OH	92	104,634	54%	-31%	74%	92%
21	Aurora, CO	91	39,080	54%	-33%	85%	93%
22	Nashville-Davidson, TN	91	72,718	56%	-31%	80%	91%
23	Philadelphia, PA	91	277,510	39%	-41%	64%	94%
24	New York, NY	91	895,789	38%	-42%	71%	97%
25	Hillsboro, OR	91	10,520	49%	-34%	84%	96%
26	Vancouver, WA	91	25,930	49%	-34%	84%	98%
27	Lansing, MI	91	18,552	47%	-38%	70%	95%
28	Bellevue, WA	91	12,463	58%	-26%	79%	93%
29	Salt Lake City, UT	90	22,104	54%	-31%	73%	91%
30	Garland, TX	90	19,747	65%	-18%	80%	87%
31	Raleigh, NC	90	45,660	56%	-26%	81%	93%
32	Gresham, OR	89	18,456	46%	-37%	81%	95%
33	Washington, DC	89	78,413	39%	-46%	73%	98%
34	Albuquerque, NM	89	81,602	46%	-37%	75%	96%
35	Omaha, NE	89	53,220	57%	-30%	82%	88%
36	Austin, TX	88	87,956	57%	-28%	76%	90%
37	North Las Vegas, NV	88	25,876	50%	-30%	87%	91%
38	San Francisco, CA	88	85,743	48%	-40%	75%	98%
39	Lexington-Fayette, KY	88	38,441	47%	-36%	75%	96%
40	Baltimore, MD	88	96,445	39%	-42%	66%	96%
41	Cincinnati, OH	88	36,584	42%	-39%	67%	95%
42	Phoenix, AZ	87	184,295	47%	-34%	78%	92%
43	Kent, WA	87	14,098	46%	-41%	88%	96%
44	Los Angeles, CA	86	397,171	46%	-35%	74%	95%
45	El Paso, TX	86	92,095	49%	-29%	78%	90%
46	Rochester, NY	86	37,503	39%	-43%	61%	98%
47	Louisville/Jefferson County, KY	86	96,695	40%	-44%	70%	96%
48	Charlotte, NC	86	61,875	47%	-38%	80%	92%
49	Denver, CO	86	65,123	48%	-39%	74%	93%
50	Cleveland, OH	86	71,927	35%	-44%	57%	96%
51	Mesa, AZ	86	59,686	48%	-36%	85%	93%
52	Buffalo, NY	86	41,803	35%	-42%	60%	97%
53	Greensboro, NC	86	34,980	42%	-38%	67%	96%
54	Urban Honolulu, HI	85	37,470	44%	-41%	83%	97%
55	St. Louis, MO	85	49,128	41%	-44%	67%	92%
56	Las Vegas, NV	85	78,804	44%	-37%	77%	93%
57	Tucson, AZ	84	84,671	39%	-42%	73%	95%
58	New Orleans, LA	84	53,377	41%	-38%	62%	95%
59	Savannah, GA	84	22,453	45%	-37%	71%	90%
60	San Diego, CA	84	122,630	46%	-35%	82%	96%
61	Yonkers, NY	84	27,700	47%	-36%	70%	94%
62	Detroit, MI	83	117,257	31%	-46%	61%	96%
63	St. Petersburg, FL	83	34,343	41%	-45%	81%	94%
64	Grand Rapids, MI	83	25,323	47%	-37%	61%	94%
65	Reno, NV	83	26,414	48%	-38%	82%	90%
66	Atlanta, GA	83	59,324	38%	-40%	64%	92%
67	Jacksonville, FL	83	112,499	44%	-38%	77%	92%
68	Tallahassee, FL	82	16,295	41%	-37%	68%	94%
69	Richmond, CA	82	12,015	43%	-40%	86%	96%
70	San Antonio, TX	82	228,874	43%	-39%	74%	87%
71	Oakland, CA	82	45,422	44%	-39%	72%	97%
72	Richmond, VA	82	33,651	47%	-36%	60%	90%
73	Inglewood, CA	82	14,053	40%	-44%	81%	96%
74	Syracuse, NY	82	24,646	36%	-37%	61%	98%
75	Milwaukee, WI	81	70,847	30%	-48%	69%	95%
76	Tacoma, WA	81	28,775	44%	-41%	76%	95%
77	Sacramento, CA	81	57,295	37%	-46%	79%	98%
78	Glendale, AZ	81	36,737	42%	-38%	70%	92%
79	Indianapolis, IN	81	114,880	40%	-43%	75%	93%
80	Spokane, WA	81	34,954	35%	-47%	72%	97%
81	Springfield, MA	81	23,409	30%	-47%	64%	100%
82	Houston, TX	81	230,799	46%	-33%	73%	86%
83	New Haven, CT	81	12,030	34%	-45%	65%	98%
84	Westminster, CO	80	10,127	69%	-21%	93%	96%
85	Riverside, CA	80	36,537	39%	-39%	82%	96%
86	Thornton, CO	80	13,635	63%	-22%	91%	99%
87	East Los Angeles, CA	80	11,695	40%	-39%	82%	92%
88	Kansas City, MO	80	63,933	42%	-43%	77%	89%
89	San Jose, CA	80	93,302	42%	-41%	84%	98%
90	Dallas, TX	80	137,992	46%	-35%	76%	86%
91	Gilbert, AZ	80	20,861	63%	-20%	92%	96%
92	Jersey City, NJ	79	23,893	39%	-43%	69%	93%
93	Antioch, CA	79	17,356	52%	-29%	72%	94%
94	Fresno, CA	79	76,129	40%	-39%	68%	96%
95	Renton, WA	79	10,994	46%	-39%	72%	96%
96	Durham, NC	79	22,448	38%	-42%	71%	94%
97	Anaheim, CA	79	29,892	49%	-33%	78%	94%
98	Columbia, MD	78	10,235	39%	-46%	75%	96%
99	Bridgeport, CT	78	25,570	43%	-40%	60%	91%
100	Providence, RI	77	23,065	31%	-50%	61%	97%
101	Worcester, MA	77	23,347	37%	-43%	66%	98%
102	Pasadena, CA	77	11,091	43%	-38%	75%	96%
103	Newark, NJ	77	50,995	45%	-36%	61%	88%
104	Vallejo, CA	77	14,266	36%	-45%	78%	97%
105	Hayward, CA	77	15,144	36%	-47%	88%	98%
106	Chula Vista, CA	77	26,014	41%	-41%	86%	94%
107	Arvada, CO	76	13,779	68%	-20%	80%	96%
108	Long Beach, CA	76	48,865	44%	-37%	73%	93%
109	Enterprise, NV	76	16,000	58%	-30%	89%	97%
110	Scottsdale, AZ	76	25,315	55%	-30%	89%	98%
111	Virginia Beach, VA	76	49,797	56%	-30%	87%	95%
112	Henderson, NV	76	39,474	51%	-29%	89%	97%
113	Cary, NC	76	11,291	61%	-22%	91%	94%
114	Baton Rouge, LA	75	36,439	54%	-24%	71%	95%
115	Santa Ana, CA	75	24,566	42%	-39%	81%	94%
116	Lubbock, TX	75	31,035	54%	-24%	81%	92%
117	Sunrise Manor, NV	74	25,906	32%	-42%	72%	88%
118	Concord, CA	74	15,221	39%	-45%	81%	95%
119	South Bend, IN	74	17,741	52%	-30%	75%	93%
120	Fort Collins, CO	74	11,147	59%	-22%	77%	99%
121	Cedar Rapids, IA	74	13,405	54%	-32%	76%	97%
122	Eugene, OR	73	26,909	54%	-26%	75%	96%
123	Fort Worth, TX	72	83,735	45%	-36%	78%	90%
124	Chandler, AZ	72	25,784	57%	-28%	87%	93%
125	Norman, OK	72	15,548	46%	-29%	80%	95%
126	Wichita, KS	72	58,827	51%	-35%	79%	91%
127	Fort Wayne, IN	71	39,898	48%	-36%	80%	94%
128	Colorado Springs, CO	71	58,892	53%	-32%	84%	94%
129	Overland Park, KS	71	16,748	51%	-37%	92%	92%
130	Lincoln, NE	71	29,663	53%	-34%	82%	92%
131	Salem, OR	71	26,496	53%	-28%	76%	96%
132	Boise City, ID	71	26,839	53%	-32%	74%	96%
133	Little Rock, AR	71	27,719	49%	-33%	73%	97%
134	Miami, FL	71	53,333	33%	-51%	64%	92%
135	Arlington, TX	70	43,307	52%	-29%	89%	91%
136	Irving, TX	69	15,703	64%	-18%	85%	85%
137	Hollywood, FL	69	21,197	40%	-45%	77%	84%
138	Fargo, ND	69	13,297	53%	-38%	75%	94%
139	Spring Valley, NV	69	24,982	48%	-35%	81%	96%
140	Springfield, IL	68	18,332	51%	-30%	73%	91%
141	Tampa, FL	68	46,795	36%	-44%	64%	91%
142	Chico, CA	68	12,316	60%	-18%	75%	95%
143	Warren, MI	68	20,442	44%	-38%	77%	98%
144	Dayton, OH	68	30,189	41%	-36%	68%	93%
145	Des Moines, IA	68	31,526	47%	-41%	73%	96%
146	Fairfield, CA	67	13,088	53%	-30%	88%	98%
147	Oceanside, CA	67	22,200	52%	-33%	92%	96%
148	Orlando, FL	67	29,213	53%	-32%	80%	91%
149	Elizabeth, NJ	67	12,454	31%	-49%	75%	91%
150	Montgomery, AL	67	24,929	41%	-40%	76%	95%
151	Topeka, KS	66	17,266	48%	-41%	80%	90%
152	Toledo, OH	66	46,755	41%	-39%	67%	94%
153	Fullerton, CA	66	10,519	53%	-26%	85%	99%
154	Sioux Falls, SD	66	19,177	56%	-35%	73%	92%
155	Rockford, IL	66	20,380	42%	-39%	65%	98%
156	Plano, TX	66	19,721	49%	-33%	88%	93%
157	Fayetteville, NC	65	30,432	47%	-33%	75%	88%
158	Macon-Bibb, GA	65	25,261	40%	-40%	74%	92%
159	Rancho Cucamonga, CA	65	15,704	46%	-36%	86%	98%
160	Chattanooga, TN	65	30,394	45%	-41%	76%	90%
161	Pompano Beach, FL	65	16,997	57%	-27%	78%	91%
162	Oklahoma City, OK	65	87,039	45%	-38%	77%	89%
163	Santa Clarita, CA	65	18,943	51%	-28%	85%	98%
164	Simi Valley, CA	65	14,160	50%	-32%	87%	97%
165	Columbus, GA	65	34,525	41%	-36%	74%	91%
166	Huntington Beach, CA	65	20,002	51%	-32%	85%	98%
167	Ontario, CA	64	14,496	47%	-33%	86%	95%
168	Bakersfield, CA	64	37,055	41%	-34%	81%	94%
169	Tulsa, OK	64	51,592	47%	-35%	76%	87%
170	Wilmington, NC	64	16,237	43%	-32%	73%	93%
171	Akron, OH	64	30,270	35%	-47%	71%	98%
172	Salinas, CA	63	13,270	45%	-31%	84%	96%
173	Mobile, AL	63	19,684	34%	-42%	80%	94%
174	Evansville, IN	63	17,145	36%	-47%	77%	94%
175	Memphis, TN	62	88,918	36%	-45%	75%	92%
176	Moreno Valley, CA	62	21,985	39%	-36%	86%	96%
177	Joliet, IL	62	13,518	40%	-45%	89%	96%
178	Santa Rosa, CA	62	17,967	50%	-35%	90%	95%
179	Peoria, AZ	61	23,934	37%	-44%	83%	95%
180	El Monte, CA	61	11,317	44%	-33%	85%	97%
181	Allentown, PA	61	17,634	42%	-39%	70%	94%
182	Anchorage, AK	60	30,412	47%	-36%	81%	92%
183	Corona, CA	60	11,330	46%	-32%	87%	93%
184	West Palm Beach, FL	60	15,678	50%	-33%	73%	94%
185	Corpus Christi, TX	60	41,538	42%	-36%	71%	89%
186	El Cajon, CA	60	12,575	46%	-36%	81%	96%
187	Torrance, CA	59	12,307	43%	-40%	91%	98%
188	Columbia, SC	59	15,250	45%	-25%	66%	86%
189	Escondido, CA	59	16,216	49%	-29%	73%	96%
190	Charleston, SC	59	14,236	50%	-32%	72%	89%
191	Knoxville, TN	59	26,334	36%	-42%	66%	93%
192	Denton, TX	59	14,593	49%	-33%	82%	85%
193	Fontana, CA	59	19,448	40%	-39%	83%	95%
194	Palmdale, CA	59	21,135	44%	-33%	80%	95%
195	Elk Grove, CA	59	16,683	32%	-49%	87%	99%
196	Winston-Salem, NC	58	27,650	30%	-49%	75%	94%
197	Laredo, TX	58	35,475	48%	-29%	73%	79%
198	Amarillo, TX	57	23,509	37%	-48%	73%	92%
199	Irvine, CA	57	15,464	47%	-27%	77%	96%
200	Pomona, CA	57	17,816	48%	-30%	83%	90%
201	Springfield, MO	56	30,362	35%	-40%	64%	89%
202	Oxnard, CA	56	17,472	46%	-34%	82%	92%
203	Thousand Oaks, CA	56	12,783	37%	-46%	87%	98%
204	Lancaster, CA	56	12,614	37%	-32%	79%	98%
205	Augusta-Richmond County, GA	55	33,074	27%	-54%	75%	91%
206	Birmingham, AL	55	36,989	35%	-43%	62%	90%
207	San Bernardino, CA	55	22,182	38%	-40%	71%	95%
208	Athens-Clarke County, GA	55	16,436	41%	-30%	67%	82%
209	Fort Lauderdale, FL	54	21,041	51%	-34%	73%	87%
210	Stockton, CA	54	42,519	40%	-35%	81%	97%
211	San Buenaventura (Ventura), CA	54	14,025	44%	-39%	81%	93%
212	Glendale, CA	53	22,520	39%	-44%	73%	98%
213	West Covina, CA	52	10,371	32%	-50%	83%	100%
214	Burbank, CA	49	10,382	43%	-40%	71%	94%
215	Lowell, MA	49	16,488	33%	-53%	71%	97%
216	Garden Grove, CA	49	17,759	37%	-44%	78%	93%
217	Norwalk, CA	47	10,563	33%	-47%	82%	94%
218	Hialeah, FL	41	33,059	25%	-56%	66%	92%

About Deb Gordon

Deb Gordon, the co-founder and CEO of Umbra Health Advocacy, has held executive roles in health insurance and health care technology services. She authored a book titled “The Health Care Consumer’s Manifesto,” based on her research as a senior fellow at Harvard Kennedy School’s Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government. Her works have been published on JAMA Network Open, Harvard Business Review blog, USA Today and RealClear Politics, among others.

Gordon is an Aspen Institute Health Innovators Fellow and an Eisenhower Fellow. She was a 2011 Boston Business Journal 40 Under 40 honoree and a volunteer at MIT’s Delta V start-up accelerator, the Fierce Healthcare Innovation Awards. She earned her bioethics degree from Brown University and her MBA with distinction from Harvard Business School.

Read Full Bio »

sources

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Disability Impacts All of Us." Accessed October 29, 2024.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Persons with a Disability: Labor Force Characteristics — 2020." Accessed October 29, 2024.
Cornell University. "Disability Statistics." Accessed October 29, 2024.
United States Census Bureau. "Income and Poverty in the United States: 2020." Accessed October 29, 2024.
The National Disability Institute. "The Financial Challenges of Disability." Accessed October 29, 2024.
U.S. Department of Labor. "Subminimum Wage." Accessed October 29, 2024.
Forbes. "Employee Self-Advocacy: How To Talk To Your Employer About Your Disability." Accessed October 29, 2024.
Learning Disabilities Association of America. "Self-Advocacy in the Workplace: Requesting Job Accommodations." Accessed October 29, 2024.